JUDGMENT 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard. 2. Petitioners along with other family members moved Tahsildar Mauganj with an application under section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for partition of land admeasuring 15.61½ acre of Khasra Nos.412 K/1/6/9/ 1 K/8/1, 19/2 K, 20/1, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33/1, 34/1, 36/1, 36/2, 44/2, 46, 46/1, 48/1, 52/2, 55/1, 60/1, 22/62/1, 40/63/1 situated at village Jamai. By order passed on 20.7.2007 the property stood partitioned. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order filed an appeal on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed. The appellate authority by order dated 9.11.2010 set aside the partition order on the finding that the procedure was not followed. It found:- ^^mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdksa ds }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr rdZ dk voyksdu fd, tkus ds mijkar vihy izdj.k dk rFkk vihy izdj.k esa layXu v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds izdj.k dk voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds izdj.k ds voyksdu ls ik;k tkrk gS fd /kkjk 178 ds rgr mn~?kks"k.kk tks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ml ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ugha cus gq, gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds izdj.k esa vukŒ x.kksa dh }kjk tokcnkok tks fnukad 30-5-2007 dks is'k gS] ml ijk leLr i{kdkjksa ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA vihy izdj.k esa layXu vihyk/khu Hkwfe [kaŒ uaŒ 20@1 jdck 1-045 gsŒ Hkwfe dk [kljk iaplkyk o"kZ 2006&2007 dh Nk;kizfr tks layXu gS] mlds voyksdu ls ik;k tkrk gS fd [kljk ds dkye uaŒ 3 esa Jherh cEik nsoh cxSjg o'k uaŒ 4@2@d@1 ntZ gS] rFkk dkye uaŒ 12 esa 'kkldh; Hkou nsojh ntZ vfHkys[k gS] mDr Hkwfe dks Hkh caVokjk iqYyh esa Mkydj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr vk/kkjksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 178 caVokjk fu;eksa ds rgr u rks mn~?kks"k.kk dk fof/kor izdk'ku djk;k x;k vkSj u gh leLr i{kdkjksa ds lgefr ds vk/kkj ij caVokjk iqYyh gh dCts ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj djkbZ xbZ vkSj uk gh gYdk iVokjh ds }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ caVokjk iqYyh ij izfrijh{k.k gh djk;k x;k] uk gh leLr lg[kkrsnkjksa dks lquokbZ o lk{; dk leqfpr volj gh fn;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr caVokjk vkns'k caVokjk fu;eksa ds fo#) gksus ls fLFkj j[kk tkuk mfpr ugha gSA^^ 3. Second appeal preferred there against was also dismissed on 7.1.2013. Second appeal preferred there against was also dismissed on 7.1.2013. Where against the respondent filed a revision under section 50 of 1959 Code. The Board reversed the order by the appellate authorities on a finding that no evidence was led before appellate authority to establish the fact that forged thumb impression of appellant No.4 was obtained. The Board also took note of the fact that even a complaint case filed by the present petitioner alleging forgery as to thumb impression was dismissed. 4. The Board also found that other members of the family on the basis of said partition have sold their land. The Board also took note of the fact that even a complaint case filed by the present petitioner alleging forgery as to thumb impression was dismissed. 4. The Board also found that other members of the family on the basis of said partition have sold their land. The Revenue Board found: ^^5- rglhy U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ns[kus ls fofnr gksrk gS fd rglhy U;k;ky; esa caVokjk vkosnui= vkosnd rFkk vukosnd ØŒ 1 ls 4 }kjk la;qDr #i ls izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr vihy esa vihykFkhZ@vukosnd us vkosnui= esa vkosnd@vihykFkhZ ds QthZ gLrk{kj rFkk vihy ØŒ 4 dk QthZ vaxwBk gksuk vafdr fd;k gS] fdUrq bl laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa us vius vkns'kksa esa vkosnui= ij QthZ gLrk{kj ,oa QthZ vaxwBk gksuk fu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA vkosndx.k }kjk U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh] izFke Js.kh eÅxat ftyk jhok ds vkns'k fnukad 25-2-2014 dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi dh QksVks izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gSA blds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd vukosnd jktsUnzdqekj nqcs }kjk ifjokn i= HkkŒnŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 147] 120ch] 420] 467 468] 471 rFkk 404 ds varxZr LovftZr ifjokni= esa mfYyf[kr laifÙk dks muds QthZ gLrk{kj vaxwBk fu'kkuh yxkdj rglhy esa ukekarj.k djkus ls izLrqr fd;k x;k ftls U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh }kjk [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA iVokjh gYdk }kjk caVokjk iqYyh lgefr ,oa ekSds ij LFky fujh{k.k dj rS;kj dh x;h gSA vukosnd ØŒ 1 ls 3 ds vykok vU; fdlh Hkh lg[kkrsnkj] ftuds caVokjk iqYyh ij lgefr ds gLrk{kj dh x;h gS] blfy;s bl vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ@vukosndksa] tks Lo;a rglhy esa vkosnudrkZ Fkk] dks vihy esa dksbZ jkgr ugha nh tk ldrh FkhA lafgrk dh /kkjk 178¼1½ ds f}rh; ijUrqd ds vuqlkj LoRo ds iz'u mBkus ij caVokjk dk;Zokgh rhu ekg ds fy;s LFkfxr djus dk izko/kku gS ftlls LoRo ds iz'u ds fofu'p; ds fy, flfoy lwV nk;j fd;k tk ldsA ;fn mDr vof/k esa flfoy lwV nk;j dj LFkxu izkIr ugha fd;k tkrk gS fd LFkxu ds vkns'k dks vfHk'kwU; dj caVokjk vf/kdkj vfHkys[k esa dh xbZ izfof"V;ksa ds vuqlkj fd;s tkus dk izko/kku gS vFkkZr rglhynkj dks lafgrk dh /kkjk 178 ds vUrxZr LoRo ds iz'u ds fofu'p; dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA vkosndx.k }kjk izLrqr iath;r foØ;i= dh QksVks izfr ls Li"V gS fd vukosnd eqlŒ jkejth nqcs lgefrdrkZ t;izdk'k nqcs }kjk Øsrk c`ts'k dqekj frokjh dks [kŒ uaŒ 62@1@d@22 jdck 0-012 gsŒ Hkwfe iath;r foØ;i= fnukad 6-3-2014 }kjk foØ; dh gS vFkkZr rglhy ds vkns'k ds vuqlkj Hkwfe dk foØ; fd;k x;k gS vkSj ogh nwljh vksj vukosnd rduhdh vk/kkj ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks voS/k crk jgs gSaA vU; lg[kkrsnkjksa Hkh rglhy ds caVokjk@ukekarj.k ds i'pkr~ iath;r foØ;i= ds ek/;e ls Hkwfe dk foØ; fd;k tkuk foØ;i=ksa dh QksVks izfr;ka ls Kkr gksrk gSA rglhynkj }kjk vihykFkhZ@vukosnd ,oa fjLiksUMsUV@vkosndx.k ds la;qDr vkosnui= ds vk/kkj ij iVokjh }kjk lgefr ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr iqYyh ds vk/kkj ij lg&HkwfeLokfeksa }kjk iath;r foØ;i= ds ek/;e ls Hkwfe dk foØ; fd;k tk pqdk gS] bl dkj.k vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh }kjk caVokjk fu;e dk ikyu ugha djus vFkZkr izfØ;k dh =qfV ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k izR;kofRkZr djus esa =qfV dh gS fo}ku vij vk;qDr }kjk Hkh vkns'k ikfjr djrs le; bl vksj /;ku ugha fn;k x;k gS] blfy;s vij vk;qDr dk vkns'k Hkh fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA^^ 5. Though the petitioner criticized the impugned order contending that the Board of Revenue exceeds its revisional jurisdiction. The fact however, remains that the appellate authorities without substantiating the findings on the cogent material evidence had set aside the partition. As the Revenue Board noted the perversity in findings by both the appellate authority, it was well within its jurisdiction to have set aside these orders and restore the order passed by Tahsildar. It is further apprised by respondent that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.307-A/2013 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction which is dismissed by the Judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013. The petitioner having exhausted the remedy of civil suit have no legal right to question the partition which attained finality with the dismissal of the suit. 6. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.