JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order vide Annexure-3 and the consequential order based on Annexure-3 vide Annexure-4. 2. In assailing the impugned order passed in the Revision whereby while dismissing the revision, the Revisional Authority confirmed the order passed in O.A. No.6 dated 3.01.2001, Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioner taking the attention of this Court to the claims made by the private opposite party vide Annexure-1 submitted that when the private opposite party had a claim in respect of 8 Anna share from the disputed property basing upon a judgment passed in Second Appeal No.187 of 1992, the Appellate Authority considering the matter on remand from the Revisional Authority while considering the shares of the parties, exceeded the shares in respect of the contestants and illegally allotted shares beyond the claim made in the application. The petitioner’s appeal challenging the order passed in the remand proceeding was also dismissed without taking into consideration the grounds made therein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further taking the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-3 submitted that the Appellate Authority in rejecting the claim of the private opposite party in respect of the revision case No.116/1999 considered the matter confining to the claim of the parties in respect of Mouza-Gopinathpur. 4. Learned counsel for the private opposite party on the other hand, submitted that he had claim applications such as R.P. Case No.1168 of 1999 in respect of Mouza-Gopinathpur and R.C. Case No.1169 of 1999 in respect of Mouza-Balia and even though contended that his claim was confined to both the Mouzas but however, has no denial to the observation of the appellate Court in Annexure-3 dismissing his claim involving Revision Case No.1169 of 1999 concerning village Balia. It is also admitted that dismissal of the Revision Case No.1169 of 1999 has also not been further challenged by the private opposite party in higher forums. 5. It is also admitted that dismissal of the Revision Case No.1169 of 1999 has also not been further challenged by the private opposite party in higher forums. 5. Considering the rival contention of the parties and after going through the claim application confining to R.C. Case No.1168 of 1999, this Court finds the petitioner has the following prayer and the scheduled of property : “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this revision in view of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court in Second Appeal No.186/92 thereby creating separate holding in favour of the petitioner in respect of his 8 Annas share by affecting partition or may record the xx xx of the petitioner along with opposite parties with a share note in the interest of justice and equity. Schedule of property Mouza-Gopinathpur, Dist.-Jagatsinghpur, Thana No. Khata No.711 Chaka No.31, Chaka Plot No.506 area A1.20 dec. Khata No.712. Chaka No.594, Chaka Plot No.2728 area A1.20 decs. 587 2715 area A0.20 decs. 311 510 area A0.09 decs.” 6. Reading of the aforesaid prayer and the details in the schedule it leaves no doubt that the petitioner’s prayer in the R.P. Case 1168 of 1999 not only confined to 8 Anna share but the claim was also confined to the properties under Mouza-Gopinathpur only. Looking to the observations and the discussions made in the impugned order, in the appeal as well as in the revision, this Court finds the authority even though considered the claim of the private opposite party in respect of Mouza-Gopinathpur and in respect of claim of 8 Anna share depending upon the judgment passed in Second Appeal No.187/1992 but granted the relief beyond the claim made by the private opposite party. The Revisional Authority also failed in considering this aspect. 7. Under the circumstances, this Court while setting aside the orders under Annexures-3 & 4, remand the matter to the appellate Authority to reconsider the matter involving O.A. No.6 dated 3.1.2001 but however, in view of no-challenge to the findings of the appellate authority in respect of R.C. No.1169/1999 by the private opposite party confine the present consideration in the appeal to the extent of claim made in the Revision Case No.1168/1999 only. The case shall be re-determined only after giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and basing upon the documents already available on record and without accepting any further pleading by any of the parties. The entire exercise as directed hereinabove, be concluded within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. In view of disposal of this petition, interim order passed earlier stands vacated.