JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondents. 2. This case is arising out of a suit for partition filed under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “Act of 1950”) by contesting respondents. In proceedings of said suit, a proposed kurra was rejected and it was directed that Lekhpal concerned will submit a fresh kurra. For reference, relevant part of order is mentioned below :- 3. Aforesaid order was challenged by contesting respondents by way of filing a first appeal before Commissioner, Prayagraj. Said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2024 and relevant part of order is quoted below :- 4. In aforesaid circumstances, contesting respondents filed a revision petition under Section 333 of Act of 1950. Said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 18.09.2024 whereby orders dated 31.08.2019 and 01.04.2024 were set aside and matter was remitted back to pass a fresh order. Relevant part of order is quoted below :- 5. Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner submits that revision petition filed U/s 333 of Act of 1950 was not maintainable in view of Section 210 of rd U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in terms of 3 Schedule of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a second appeal was maintainable. 6. Learned counsel also refers that issue in regard to whether revision or second appeal will lie is pending consideration before Larger Bench of this Court. 7. Learned counsel also refers certain arguments on merit, however, from bare perusal of grounds mentioned in this writ petition, only issue raised before this Court is maintainability of revision petition. 8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred judgments passed by coordinate Benches in Charan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others , 2019: AHC :219301 and Udayvir and others vs. Board of Revenue and others , (2022) 8 ILRA 1066. 9. Per contra, S/Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi and Azad Rai, learned advocates for respondents submit that issue has not been decided correctly by trial Court and report was fresh sought. The Board of Revenue has rightly interfered and directed to pass a fresh order that issues be framed and matter be decided after hearing both parties. 10. Heard learned advocates for parties and perused the record. 11. The Board of Revenue has rightly interfered and directed to pass a fresh order that issues be framed and matter be decided after hearing both parties. 10. Heard learned advocates for parties and perused the record. 11. The issue referred before Larger Bench of this Court is whether in a suit, revision will be maintainable or second appeal will be maintainable? Even it is considered that revision petition was not a correct procedure, still, it is not disputed that Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to consider case either on revision petition or second appeal. The issue before this Court is that whether impugned order passed by Board of Revenue would prejudice the case of petitioner or not and since matter has been remitted back to trial Court to pass a fresh order on basis of issue raised after framing issues which could not prejudice the case of petitioner. 12. In aforesaid circumstances, since there are judgments that in facts and circumstances of present case, revision is also maintainable as well as that matter is remitted back to pass a fresh order, no circumstance exists to interfere with impugned order, however, it is observed that while framing issues in suit, case of petitioner may also be heard and petitioner will be at liberty to submit issue for consideration. 13. It is also made clear that any observation made by Revisional Court shall not be considered to be final and trial Court will decide the suit on its own merit. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.