ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction: I. The impugned judgment dated 02.07.2025 (Annex.12) passed by the Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision No. /?.?./5887/2019/Udaipur titled as "Laxmilal Vs Daulat Ram & Ors." may kindly be quashed and set aside; II. The Revision preferred by the petitioner i.e. Revision No. /?.?./5887/2019/Udaipur titled as "Laxmilal Vs Daulat Ram & Ors." (Annex.10) may kindly be allowed in toto; III. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 (Annex.9) passed by the Learned Assistant Collector and Sub- Divisional Officer, Girva in Revenue Case no. 02/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2000 (Annex.5) passed by the Learned Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Girva may kindly be affirmed. IV. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Ambalal who is father of respondents, filed suit against the present petitioner and others before the learned SDO, Girva under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 . The suit filed by the Ambalal came to be decided ex-parte on 20.11.1995 and a decree of eviction was passed accordingly. 3. Learned counsel submitted that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, Girva however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 20.05.1997. Thereupon, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned RAA which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 01.07.1997 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 20.11.1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, Girva for hearing the matter afresh. 4. Learned counsel submitted that when the matter was heard afresh, the respondents- original plaintiff(s) failed to appear before the Court and the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2020 dismissed the suit filed by the respondents- original plaintiff(s). 4. Learned counsel submitted that when the matter was heard afresh, the respondents- original plaintiff(s) failed to appear before the Court and the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2020 dismissed the suit filed by the respondents- original plaintiff(s). The respondents- original plaintiff(s) after an inordinate delay of over ten years, preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that respondents- original plaintiff(s) were unaware of the proceedings of the case been remanded back to be decided a fresh and, therefore, they could not appear before the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva. 5. The Court of Assistant Collector, Girva after hearing the parties by an order dated 12.09.2019 was pleased to allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . Consequently, a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the petitioner before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the order dated 12.09.2019 which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.07.2025. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Board of Revenue and the learned Court of Assistant Collector, Girva in the impugned orders have failed to consider that no satisfactory explanation for set asiding the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2000 was given by the respondent to condone the inordinate and unexplained delay of over ten years. He submitted that once the matter was remanded by the learned RAA, it was the duty of the respondents to appear and contest the matter before the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva. Learned counsel submitted that since the respondents- original plaintiff(s) failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay of over ten years, the ex-parte decree ought not to have been set aside by the trial Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments passed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva and learned Board of Revenue. 8. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments passed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva and learned Board of Revenue. 8. The operative portion of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Girva, District Udaipur reads as under:- ^^mHk;i{k fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa cgl ij euu fd;k x;k i=koyh,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k nLtkostksa dk xgurk ls v/;;u fd;k x;k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 20-11-95 dks izfroknhx.k dk dCtk gVkdj oknhx.k dks fliqnhZ dk vkns'k iznku fd;k x;k] mDr fMØh ds fo:} foi{kh us vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 esa vihy dh xbZ foi{kh dh vihy U;k;ky; Hkw&izcU/k vf/kdkjh,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh mn;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 09-07-1997 }kjk Lohdkj dh tkdj izdj.k izfrizsf"kr fd;k x;k ysfdu i{kdkjksa dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa lquokbZ fnukad fu;r ugha dh tkus ls izkFkh@oknh dh tkudkjh ds vHkko esa oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k tkdj izfroknh dk dkmUVj Dyse Lohdkj dj [kkrsnkjh ds fu.kZ; o fMØh vkns'k fnukad 22-07-2000 dks fn;s x;s mDr fu.kZ; o fMØh ls O;fFkr gksdj izkFkhZ }kjk izk-i- vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 lgifBr /kkjk 151 flizl-,oa e;kn vf/kfu;e /kkjk 5 dk izkFkZuk i= tkudkjh ds vHkko esa nsjh dk izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks fu;r vkxkeh lquokbZ frfFk Kkr ugh gksus mDr lquokbZ ds laca/k esa dHkh lwpuk i= lEeu nsdj lwfpr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VªkUrksa dk v/;;u Hkh fd;k x;k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VªkUr Hkh gLrxr izdj.k esa iw.kZr% ykxw gksrs gS o lkE; j[krs gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ }kjk yEcs le; ds ckn izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gS izkFkhZ dks 5000@& v{kjs ikWp gtkj :i;s ds vkfFkZd n.M ls Hkh n.Mhr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 lgifBr /kkjk 151 flizl- e; e;kn vf/kfu;e /kkjk 5 dk U;k;kfgr esa Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 22-07- 2000 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ewy izdj.k dks iwu% uEcj ij fy;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ vkfFkZd n.M jkf'k 5000@& :i;sa jktdks"k esa tek djk jlhn is'k djsaA fu.kZ; ljsbZtykl lwuk;kA izdj.k QSly 'kqekj gksdj uEcj ls de gksA^^^ ^ 9. Upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Girva, District Udaipur and order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, this Court finds that the Sub Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Girva, District Udaipur in its order has given sufficient reasons to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.07.2000. The scope available with this Court to interfere with the impugned orders is very limited. The order passed by the Revenue Court on an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be interfered by this Court only when the Revenue Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction or has committed a pulpable error or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction but since the impugned orders have been passed after due examination of the material placed before the Courts and only upon finding that the delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC has been well explained, no case for interference by this Court in the impugned judgments/ orders is made out. 10. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all just and legal objections before the competent revenue Court during trial. 11. Consequently, the present writ petition as well as stay application stands dismissed.