ORDER : 1. Instant appeal is directed against the order dt. 21.03.2017 passed by the ld. Single Judge. 2. It is not disputed that the present appellants are claiming to be the legal representatives of Debu who as alleged was the biological son of Gangadhar and Nathu although was not his biological son, but his mother Lakehri got married to Gangadhar Nathu was the son of Lakheri from her earlier wedlock and in the common dilate he was called as ‘Gelda’. 3. Indisputedly, Debu & Nathu got a mutual decree of partition dt. 11.10.2002 of the subject property in question and which was never the subject matter of challenge. 4. A fresh suit was filed at the instance of the present appellants for correction of entries and permanent injunction by impleading Debu & Nathu as defendants and finally the suit was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 19.06.2013 5. The question emerge for consideration was that after the mutual decree dt.11.10.2002 of partition between Debu & Nathu has attained finality how far a fresh suit filed by the present appellants for correction of entry and permanent injunction for the self same subject land in question was maintainable. It is not the case of the appellants that they were unaware of the mutual decree between Nathu & Debu dt.11.10.2002 and they were at liberty to challenge the mutual decree dt. 11.10.2002 if aggrieved at a given point of time. 6. The matter was examined by the ld. Single Judge and was of the view that if the decree dt. 11.10.2002 has attained finality & in absence of being questioned, a fresh suit filed by the appellants for correction of entry and permanent injunction impleading Nathu & Debu was otherwise not maintainable and dismissed the writ petition. 7. Counsel for the appellants submits that at least they may be-granted-liberty to challenge the decree dt. 11.10.2002 It is always open for the appellants to avail remedy which the law permits to them. 8. After we have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the Board of Revenue and taking note of the fact that the decree dt. 11.10.2002 It is always open for the appellants to avail remedy which the law permits to them. 8. After we have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the Board of Revenue and taking note of the fact that the decree dt. 11.10.2002 was never the subject matter of challenge, which was mutually agreed between Debu and Nathu, who are claiming to the sons of late Gangadhar, the present suit for the self same subject matter was not maintainable and after going through the order of the ld. Single Judge we find no error in the order impugned, which may call for our interference. 9. Consequently, the instant special appeal is dismissed.