JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board'), whereby the Board has stayed the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA'). 2. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 88 read with Section 40, 188 and 92A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') before the SDO, Sanchore, District - Jalore. Along with the suit, an application under Section 212 of the Act was filed. 3. The application under Section 212 of the Act was not being taken up, based on the said allegations, the petitioners filed appeal under Section 225 of the Act before the RAA along with application for stay. The RAA by its order dated 13.02.2017 directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the land in question and the revenue record. 4. The respondent No.5 filed revision petition before the Board against the order dated 13.02.2017 and the Board has stayed the order dated 13.02.2017. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board has vide its order dated 03.03.2017 issued ex-parte order, whereby the stay granted by the RAA has been stayed, consequence thereof is that the stay passed by the RAA has been vacated without even hearing the petitioners leading to grave prejudice to the petitioners and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 vehemently submitted that there is no substance in the appeal even which was filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the Board was justified in staying the injunction issued by the RAA. It was further submitted that in case the exercise of jurisdiction of the RAA is not found to be in accordance with law, the pending application under Section 212 of the Act before the SDO itself may be directed to be decided. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. Once the RAA in exercise of his jurisdiction had passed the order dated 13.02.2017 and ordered issuance of notice to the respondents, the respondents therein, without appearing before the RAA and contesting the grant of interim order, has chosen to file revision petition before the Board and surprisingly the Board while admitting the revision petition has stayed the order passed by the RAA, resulting in effect allowing the revision petition even without hearing the petitioners, inasmuch as, the interim order granted by the RAA would stand vacated. The said procedure adopted by the Board, cannot be sustained. 9. In view thereof, the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Board is set aside. However, looking to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, it appears appropriate that the SDO, Sanchore, District - Jalore is directed to take up and decide the application filed by the petitioners under Section 212 of the Act within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him and till the time that the application is decided by the SDO, the status quo regarding the land in question and the revenue record shall be maintained by the parties. 10. It is made clear that passing of this order by this Court shall not be taken as expression of any opinion on the merit of the case of either of the parties and the SDO would decide the application on its own merit based on the submissions made before him. 11. The parties shall initially appear before the SDO, Sanchore, District - Jalore on 20.03.2017. 12. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Write Petition Disposed of as above.