JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 10.8.16 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby a second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 10.9.12 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur, setting aside decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur in Revenue Suit No.157/04, 55/02 (original suit No.2031/83) and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that Shri Mangilal, the grand father of petitioner herein, preferred a suit under Section 88, 90 read with Section 92 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant Hardev, who is now represented by his legal representatives the respondents no.1 to 6 herein, in respect of the land measuring 17/4 big has and 83 big has comprising khasra no.231 and 112 respectively situated at Narnadi, Jodhpur. It is stated that the said land was recorded in the name of Idan Ram, who sold 40 big has land comprising khasra no.112 vide registered sale deed dated 4.6.71 in favour of Mangilal. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant Hardev, taking the stand that the said land was never sold by Idan Ram to Shri Mangilal by way of registered sale deed as alleged. The defendants claimed to be in cultivatory possession of entire land. The defendant Hardev had also filed a suit against Mangilal under Section 188 of the Act. Both the suits; one filed by Mangilal and another by Hardev as aforesaid, were ordered to be consolidated by the learned trial court vide order dated 6.2.97. The suit preferred by Mangilal was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.06. Aggrieved thereby, Hardev preferred an appeal before the RAA, Jodhpur. The RAA arrived at the finding that both the suits having been consolidated, the same were required to be decided by a common judgment. The RAA also noticed certain irregularities in respect of the issues framed and decision thereon and accordingly while setting aside the decree under appeal, remanded the matter to the trial court to decide both the suits i.e. the suit No.16/89 and suit No.150/88 afresh by a common judgment, after due consideration of evidence on record. Pursuant to the remand order passed by the RAA, the proceedings are pending before the trial court. 4. Pursuant to the remand order passed by the RAA, the proceedings are pending before the trial court. 4. At this stage, the petitioner herein, who was not party to the suit proceedings or in appeal, preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, claiming himself to be legal heir of Shri Mangilal, being grand son, along with an application seeking leave to appeal as also an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal preferred has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while decreeing the suit, the trial court has recorded finding on each issue after due consideration of the evidence on record and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the suit preferred by Hardev, which was consolidated with the suit filed by Mangilal, has not been decided simultaneously. Learned counsel submitted that after consolidation, by virtue of provisions of Section 10 read with Section 151, the suit No.16/89 preferred by Hardev also stand decided by judgment dated 31.10.06, which has attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the said judgment in suit No.16/89. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner, who was not party to the suit proceedings or appeal, had no locus standi to maintain the appeal before the Board of Revenue. Drawing the attention of the court to the order impugned, learned counsel submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed at the threshold being not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that once both the suits were consolidated, the error on the part of trial court in not deciding both the suits simultaneously goes to the root of the matter and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the RAA has committed no error in remanding the matter to the trial court for consideration afresh. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's father and his brother, who has been implieaded as party to the proceedings on the strength of the Will executed by Shri Mangilal in his favour in respect of the disputed property, are pursuing the matter before the trial court and thus, the appeal preferred by the petitioner who has no right whatsoever, could not have been entertained. 7. 7. Indisputably, pursuant to the remand order passed, the petitioner's father Shri Omprakash as legal heir of Mangilal and his brother Dhiraj as beneficiary of the Will executed in his favour by late Shri Mangilal, are pursuing the matter before the trial court. There is nothing on record suggesting that how the petitioner has acquired a right to inter meddle in the matter. Be that as it may, the petitioner was not party to the proceedings in the suit decided by the trial court or in appeal and thus, without consideration of the application preferred by him seeking leave to appeal, the Board of Revenue was not justified in entertaining the appeal on merits. 8. That apart, the appeal was apparently barred by limitation but the application preferred by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay was also not considered and decided by the Board of Revenue. In any case, admittedly, both the suits; one preferred by late Shri Mangilal and another by late Shri Hardev were ordered to be consolidated and thus, were required to be decided simultaneously by a common judgment. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the order passed by the RAA remanding the matter to the trial court is rightly declined to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.