ORDER : Avneesh Jhingan, J. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'Board') in revision petition No.1697/2024 titled as Kajod v. Sundar @ Sundarlal. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955 (for short 'the Act') for partition and declaration. In an application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, interim order dated 14.01.2016 was passed to maintain status quo. In revision filed by respondent No.1 against order dated 14.01.2016 the Board stayed operation of the order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that revision power of the Board could not have been invoked against the interim order. 4. As per the petition, respondent No.1 is contesting respondent and is represented by Mr. Manoj Ojla, Advocate to whom advance copy was supplied. 5. Learned counsel respondent defends the impugned order by stating that the appellate authority was non-functional, hence there was no remedy available except to file revision. 6. Section 230 of the Act is reproduced below:- "230. Power of the Board to call for cases- The Board may call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court under Section 239 and if such court appears- (a) to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Board my pass such orders in the case is it thinks fit." 7. From reading of the Section, it is evident that the Board can call for the record of case decided by the subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court. Circumstances for exercising powers have been mentioned in Clause (a) to (c). 8. In the present case, it is not disputed that there is remedy of appeal against the order dated 14.01.2016 and also that the suit has yet not been decided. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside as the Board is not vested with power of revision against interim order. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. 8. In the present case, it is not disputed that there is remedy of appeal against the order dated 14.01.2016 and also that the suit has yet not been decided. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside as the Board is not vested with power of revision against interim order. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. The respondent shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievances.