Order : 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order of the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’) dated 12.06.2002, allowing the review. 2. The brief facts are that Smt. Rajwan widow of Bholia (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit under Sections 88, 89 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) against her brother-in-laws, claiming share in the property left by Roda (her father-in-law). As per the pleadings in the suit, Roda had four sons namely Banshi, Depti, Phusa and Bholia and each had one-fourth share in the agricultural land of Roda. Banshi along with Phusa were collectively cultivating one-half share and Depti along with Bholia were jointly cultivating the other half. After death of Bholia, plaintiff continued as co-owner along with Depti. In Samwat year 2029, during settlement proceedings, the land was recorded only in the name of Depti. On 11.05.1982, a suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming one-half share of Khasra Nos.295 & 296 situated in Village Salaheda, Tehsil Tijara. The suit was decreed on 03.05.1986 and it was ordered that one-half share be recorded in the name of appellant along with Depti. The appeal filed by the defendants in the suit was accepted on 09.11.1995. The Appellate Authority held that the plaintiff was never in cultivating possession of the land. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff sold the land to the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 09.01.1990. The order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioners along with daughter of the plaintiff. The Board accepted the appeal on 01.11.2000 holding that the plaintiff being widow of Bholia could inherit his property and that settlement department could not have change the entries without order of the competent Court. The review filed by the defendants- respondents was accepted by the Board on 12.06.2002 and the second appeal was ordered to be decided afresh. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board has gone beyond the jurisdiction in accepting the review and there cannot be re-hearing of the matter. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in D.R. Somayajulu, Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed And South Eastern Railway House Building Cooperative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam And Ors. vs. Attili Appala Swamy And Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board has gone beyond the jurisdiction in accepting the review and there cannot be re-hearing of the matter. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in D.R. Somayajulu, Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed And South Eastern Railway House Building Cooperative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam And Ors. vs. Attili Appala Swamy And Ors. reported in (2015) 2 SCC 390 and decision of this Court dated 24.01.2002 in D.B. Civil Review Petition Nos.1/99 & 2/99 titled as Pema Ram & Anr. vs. Rajendra & Ors. to contend that the jurisdiction in review is limited. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of the Board suffered from error apparent from the record and the relief granted to the plaintiff was contrary to the pleadings in the suit. 5. The undisputed facts are that:- (i) Roda left four sons and each had one-fourth share in the property left by Roda; (ii) the plaintiff is widow of deceased Bholia and successor for the share of Bholia; and (iii) after death of Roda, Banshi along with Phusa and Depti along with Bholia were jointly cultivating one-half share each. 6. The Board accepted the review considering that while correcting the mistake committed by the settlement department, share of the plaintiff cannot be given beyond the admitted pleadings. Albeit, it was claimed that other two brother-in-laws of the plaintiff had given up their shares but plaintiff failed to produce evidence. Further that there was mistake in the revenue record produced, khatedari was shown of Ganpat Singh and others and name of co-sharers Banshi and Depti was depicted as sons of Phusa, whereas they were brothers. The error was apparent from the record and the Board rightly accepted the review. 7. Before concluding it would be fair to deal with the argument that scope of interference in review proceedings is limited. There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the cited judgments that the review jurisdiction is circumscribed by the limits fixed in the language of Order XLI Rule 1 CPC. 8. Section 229 of the Act deals with power of review by Board and other revenue courts and is subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Board can suo moto or an application, review the order passed by it or by any of its members. 9. 8. Section 229 of the Act deals with power of review by Board and other revenue courts and is subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Board can suo moto or an application, review the order passed by it or by any of its members. 9. Under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the decree or the order passed can be reviewed on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, not within knowledge inspite of exercising due diligence or which could not have been produced at the time of passing of the decree or for mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason. 10. As discussed above, the relief granted to the plaintiff was beyond the prayer. The admitted pleadings were that the deceased husband of the plaintiff had one-fourth share in property of Roda whereas, she was held entitled to one-half share in the property. The revenue record produced and relied upon had error showing two sons of Roda as sons of their brother Phusa. 11. The scope of interference in exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well settled and there is no legal error much less perversity in the impugned order calling for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. 12. It is clarified that reasons mentioned herein above are for deciding this petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on merits of the case. 13. All pending application(s) stand dismissed.