ORDER 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2019, passed by the learned Board of Revenue in a revision petition filed by respondent No.l. 2. The facts appertain are that the respondent No.l instituted a suit for partition as well as for declaration of his half share, while impleading present petitioner and respondent No.2 and 3 as defendants. 3. In the suit aforesaid, the defendant No.3 (petitioner herein) relied upon a registered Will dated 16.02.1985 and claimed that he is the owner of the entire land. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application dated 09.11.2016 under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and prayed that a presumption in relation to veracity and authenticity of the Will in question be drawn, as the same was more than 30 years old. 5. The learned trial Court disposed of petitioner's aforesaid application vide its order dated 15.02.2017 and took the said Will on record. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2017, the respondents-plaintiffs preferred a revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 15.10.2018. 7. After dismissal of the revision petition, the respondents filed a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 contending therein that the order dated 15.10.2018 suffered from an apparent and manifest error of law. 8. Learned Board of Revenue allowed the review petition vide its order dated 23.10.2019, inter-alia, observing that an apparent error has crept in the order dated 15.10.2018. It was found by the Board that the document in question had already been taken on record by the trial Court and the same is yet to be proved, thus, the stage of drawing presumption under section 90 of the Evidence Act has not been reached yet. 9. Mr. Sumit Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that that the learned Board of Revenue has committed an illegality and irregularity in reversing the order dated 15.10.2018, in exercise of its power of review under section 229 of the Act of 1955. He argued that the power of review is very limited and the Board cannot reverse a well considered order passed by it, in exercise of its review jurisdiction. 10. Dr. He argued that the power of review is very limited and the Board cannot reverse a well considered order passed by it, in exercise of its review jurisdiction. 10. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l - plaintiff argued that the order under consideration passed by the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference, as while passing the order dated 15.10.2018 learned member of the Board had committed an apparent error and considered the provisions of section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas the stage requiring such consideration had not come. 11. Mr. Acharya invited Court's attention towards the application dated 09.11.2016, filed by the petitioner and pointed out that even the application filed by the petitioner made a reference of section 90 of the Evidence Act only and a prayer for drawing a presumption and, hence, it was not required of the Board to have examined the implication of section 68 of the Evidence Act. 12. While maintaining that the Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in reviewing its earlier order dated 15.10.2018 and allowing the review petition filed by the respondent No.l (vide order dated 23.10.2019), Dr. Acharya in alternative submitted that even if for a moment it is assumed that the learned Board of Revenue was not justified in exercising its power of review, this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India can see the correctness and legality of the order(s) passed by the Board. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. This Court may have its own reservation about exercise of power of review by the Board in the manner done, but then, as the Board has already exercised its power of review and corrected the error (may not be an apparent error) crept in earlier order dated 15.10.2018, this Court is not inclined or persuaded to go into the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order, passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of power under 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was without jurisdiction. 15. Upon perusal of both the orders (dated 15.10.2018 and 23.10.2019); passed by the Board of Revenue; material on record and hearing rival counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the ultimate view taken by the Board in its order dated 23.10.2019 is in conformity with the statutory provisions. 16. 15. Upon perusal of both the orders (dated 15.10.2018 and 23.10.2019); passed by the Board of Revenue; material on record and hearing rival counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the ultimate view taken by the Board in its order dated 23.10.2019 is in conformity with the statutory provisions. 16. On the analysis of factual matrix, particularly when, petitioner's application was filed only under section 90 of the Evidence Act and in furtherance whereof the learned trial Court has only taken certified copy of the Will dated 16.02.1985 on record, without making any observation about the correctness or drawing presumption about the Will, this Court does not find it to be a case worth interfering in its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 17. Substantial justice has been done. The Will in question has already been taken on record, it will be open for the petitioner to prove the same in accordance with law. 18. The writ petition so also the stay petition stand disposed of accordingly. 19. Needless to observe that this Court has not made any observation about the manner which is required for proving the Will in question and any observation herein made shall not affect rights of any of the parties, when the Will is put to proof.