JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Controversy involved in this writ petition is in connection with the temporary Injunction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the appeal filed by the petitioners herein before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 6.8.2019 passed an ad-interim status quo order. Against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, respondents herein filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 15.10.2019, stayed the operation of ad-interim order dated 6.8.2019 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 4. Perused the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue and the material placed before the Court. 5. The suit is pending before the trial Court and the trial Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim stay order. The application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is pending before the trial Court for final adjudication. 6. In the case of Vidya Devi and Others (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Para No.5 of the judgment held ad-infra:- "5. It is well settled that when a provision for an appeal is available, as in the instant case under Section 225 of the 1995 Act to the Revenue Appellate Authority against an order including an interim one passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, a revision petition before the Board would not be maintainable. Reference in this regard can be had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3032 , wherein it has been held that any interim order passed by a Civil Court is appeal able in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. A party aggrieved of an ad-interim injunction can either move the appellate court or approach the same court which has passed the same by way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC if the order be an ex-parte one. In fact the Board itself in its impugned order has held that the revision petition laid before it against an ad-interim order was not maintainable. It is true that the defendant had also moved an application under Section 10 CPC for the reason that prior to laying of the partition suit by the plaintiff, one of the co-khatedar had earlier also filed a similar suit. It is true that the defendant had also moved an application under Section 10 CPC for the reason that prior to laying of the partition suit by the plaintiff, one of the co-khatedar had earlier also filed a similar suit. In the circumstances the Board could indeed have required the trial court to dispose the said application within a short time but could not have interfered with the ad interim order of status quo passed by the trial court for reason of its lack of jurisdiction in a revision owing to availability of an appeal against the impugned order." 7. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of revenue record as well as possession of the property in question till disposal of the regular suit No.132/2006 pending in the Court of SDO, 1st, Jaipur and it is expected from the said trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of six months form the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue are expected to decide the appeal as well as revision petition pending before them after taking note of the status quo order passed by this Court. 9. It is expected from the Court of SDO, 1st, Jaipur to decide the suit in accordance with law without being influenced with the aforesaid order. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.