ORDER : I. Mahanty, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Bereft of any dispute, it appears that a judgment and decree dated 14.06.2002 under Annexure-6 came to be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar and a decree was drawn thereon. On 22.01.2004 under Annexure. 8, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the judgment dated 22.01.2004 and the second appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure-10). Challenging the said judgments, present writ petition has come to be filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the Board of Revenue applied the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jethu Singh & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2017 (4) RLW 2950 (Raj.) whereby this Court after considering various judgments cited in the said case, came to conclude in para 26, which reads as follows:- "26. In view of above categoric law repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the failure on part of the petitioners to file two separate appeals against the judgment dated 20.07.1996, whereby two cross suits, one filed by the petitioners and other filed by the respondents No. 5 & 6 were decided, the finding in other suit would operate as res judicata and consequently, the single appeal filed by the petitioners was not maintainable." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has failed to take into consideration the subsequent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Iqbal Banu vs. Ramesh & Ors. reported in 2019(1) WLN 65 (Raj.) whereby the selfsame Hon'ble Judge, who has rendered the judgment in the case of Jethu Singh (supra), dealt with his earlier judgment as well as referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Rani vs. Khairati Lal reported in 2015 (2) SCC 682 , and in the facts of the said case, came to conclude in paras 18 and 19 that any single appeal against the common order was maintainable. Para 18 and 19 reads as follows:- "18. Para 18 and 19 reads as follows:- "18. A bare look at the above provision would reveal that where the defendant is allowed a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, the decree shall state so. The crucial provision is sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 which deals with appeal from the decree relating to counter claim, which expressly provides that any decree passed in a suit in which a counter claim is claimed shall be subject to the same provisions in respect of appeal to which it would have been subjected, if no counter claim had been claimed. 19. Language of the provision is explicit, wherein, it has expressly provided that in an appeal from decree passed in suit where a counter claim has been claimed, the appeal would be filed as if no counter claim had been claimed, which necessarily means that the appeal would be against the decree passed in the main suit and the appellant would be entitled to question the passing of the decree on counter claim in the same appeal and, therefore, there is absolutely no necessity of filing separate appeal in case where the counter claim preferred in a suit has been decreed by the trial Court." 5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Dr. Sachin Acharya strenuously argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Iqbal Banu (supra) has been erroneously decided in the light of various judgments cited by him in this matter in Rajni Rani (supra), Jethu Singh (supra), Shanker Lal vs. Mahila Ramdai & Ors. - 2020 (213) AIC 541, Samay Singh vs. Mona Yadav & Ors.- (2019) 19 SPLR 716, Bhajan Singh vs. Jasvir Kaur -(R.S.A. No. 581 of 2013 (O&M) decided on 27.01.2016 by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court), Kishori Devi & Ors. vs. Rameshwar Prasad - AIR 2017 Pat 187 and Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Ltd. vs. Kerala Agro Seeds- : 2020 (2) AKR 215. 6. After taking into consideration the submissions advanced and the judgments referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that in the exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India object of achieving justice has to guide the exercise of such authority. Admittedly, in the present case, there was one decree and one judgment. The petitioner preferred one appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Admittedly, in the present case, there was one decree and one judgment. The petitioner preferred one appeal before the First Appellate Authority. No objection against the same was raised by the private respondent at that stage. However, on filing of the second appeal, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the first appeal, objections were raised by the private respondent on the maintainability of the single appeal against a single decree which effectively was composite decree, taking into consideration both the prayer made in the claim as well as counter-claim raised in the written statement. Admittedly, separate counter-claim was not registered independently. 7. This Court is of the considered view that interest of justice just mandate that the second Appellate Authority ought to decide the matter on merits and clearly the second Appellate Authority, the Board of Revenue has failed to take into consideration the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Iqbal Banu(supra). However, since the Board of Revenue has dismissed the petitioner's second appeal essentially on technical ground i.e. the petitioner did not prefer two separate appeals, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and it is directed that the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue for adjudication afresh. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a separate appeal within the period of 15 days from today with the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the Board of Revenue shall do well to consider the same favourably keeping in view the fact that the objections by the respondent were only raised during the second appeal and not prior thereto and consequently, the Board of Revenue ought to have granted the opportunity to the petitioner to segregate the appeal and to make two separate appeals and proceed with the matter on its own merits. On such appeal with application being filed, as directed hereinabove, the Board of Revenue is directed to take up the matter on its own merits and dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of additional appeal as directed hereinabove. 8. On such appeal with application being filed, as directed hereinabove, the Board of Revenue is directed to take up the matter on its own merits and dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of additional appeal as directed hereinabove. 8. It is further made clear that with the quashing of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the original second appeal filed by the respondent shall revive and the writ petitioner herein shall be given opportunity to delete from the original appeal all those grounds, which he intends to take up in the separate appeal, which is being filed pursuant to this order. 9. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove, but nothing stated in this order shall influence or prejudice either party before the Board of Revenue.