JUDGMENT : NAVIN SINGH, J. 1. The present appeal arises from order dated 22.07.2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1335/2014. The Learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue dated 31.01.2014 affirming the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 23.08.2005 which in turn set aside the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer dated 15.12.2003 in Revenue Suit No.456/2002 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that even if the written statement was not signed by Respondents 3 & 4, nonetheless it was filed by the Counsel to whom they had given the Vakalatnama and who also represented the other Respondents. If the written statement was filed by the Counsel given authority by Respondents No.3 & 4, mere absence of their signatures on the written statement was not sufficient reason for them to disown it. The First Appellate Authority ought not to have remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding afresh if the latter had disposed the suit in terms of the written statement. The second objection was that even if the matter has been remanded, the First Appellant Authority ought not to have given any findings on merits with regard to the claim of the Appellants. 3. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the Appellants. 4. The Appellants and the Respondents are the descendants of a common ancestor who constituted as joint family. The Appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as also correction in the entries of the revenue records before the Sub-Divisional Officer. A written statement was filed by the Respondents. The power on behalf of all the Respondents was filed by one Counsel only. The suit was disposed by the Sub- Divisional Officer on basis of the evidence lead by the Appellants along with the admissions made in the written statement. 5. Respondents 3 & 4 then filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority that they were not signatories to the written statement setting forth their own grounds of contest at variance with what may have been stated in the written statement insofar as they were concerned. The First Appellate Authority after hearing the parties was satisfied that it was a fit case for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanding it for fresh decision in accordance with law. The First Appellate Authority after hearing the parties was satisfied that it was a fit case for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanding it for fresh decision in accordance with law. The Appellants unsuccessfully assailed it before the Board of Revenue. 6. The Learned Single Judge with reference to Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has held that the pleadings were required to be signed by the parties and its pleader. The only exception being where a party is by reason of absence or other good cause unable to sign when it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him. If Respondents 3 & 4 had contested that they were not agreeable to the averments in the written statement and there was nothing on record to suggest that there were no reason for absence or other good cause for their not signing the written statement, the reasoning for the First Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue could not be faulted with. 7. To that extent we find no infirmity in the order of the Learned Single Judge warranting interference as the Appellants will have full opportunity to contest with regard to any difference in stand that Respondents 3 & 4 may take vis-a-vis the other Respondents. 8. With regard to the second apprehension of the Appellants that findings have been recorded against the Appellants by the First Appellate Authority while remanding the matter, suffice it to observe that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation or opinion expressed by the First Appellate Authority on merits. 9. The appeal is disposed with that observation.