ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Briefly noted facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition and injunction under Section 53, 181 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 along with an application under Section 212 Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the respondents with respect to agricultural land is situated at village Baga, Tehsil Jodhpur measuring 76 bigha 8 biswa. Learned trial Court has passed an interim order dated 21.12.2022 on the application to the effect that neither construction should be done on land in question nor it should be transferred. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2022, respondent No.1 - Chhanwarlal Kacchawa filed an appeal along with stay application before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.10.2025 decided the interim application finally and granted permission to respondent No.1 for raising the construction. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Act of 1955 before Board of Revenue. The revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 07.11.2025 observing that as per Section 230 of the Act of 1955, revision petition is not maintainable against the interim order. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur the petitioners has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur committed an error in granting interim order in favour of the respondent No.1 holding that the respondent is a bonafide purchaser and thus he may be permitted to raise construction on the land in question while ignoring the fact that the suit was filed for partition and injunction under Section 53, 181 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He submits that the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur preferred revision before the Board of Revenue, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2025 on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against the interim order granted by Revenue Appellate Authority. Counsel further submits that the Board of Revenue has also committed an error by rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners as the impugned order ought to be treated as a final order against which the revision was filed. 4. Counsel further submits that the Board of Revenue has also committed an error by rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners as the impugned order ought to be treated as a final order against which the revision was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Board has rightly rejected the revision filed by the petitioners against the interim order granted by Revenue Appellate Authority, as revision is not maintainable before Board of Revenue. He also submits that the appeal filed by the respondent is still pending adjudication before the Revenue Appellate Authority thus, no relief is required to be given to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 6. As regards the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the same may be exercised only in respect of a case decided by a subordinate revenue court where no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court. Additionally, such revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only on the ground of jurisdictional error, either for failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law or for material irregularity in its exercise. 7. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, a revision petition is maintainable only in respect of a decided case, and that too on limited grounds of jurisdictional error. Passing of an ad-interim order cannot be equated with a final adjudication; therefore, such an order does not constitute a “decided case” within the meaning of Section 230 of the Act of 1955. It is well settled that ad-interim orders are generally passed at the initial stage while issuing notice to the opposite party. Once the opposite side enters appearance, both parties are afforded a hearing, and the interim application is thereafter finally decided. Thus, a revision against an ex parte ad-interim order is not maintainable under Section 230 of the Act, as such orders are inherently temporary and non-final in nature. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ad-interim orders are generally passed on the initial date of the case while issuing notices to the other side and after the notice, the other side can appear before the concerned Court and put-forth its defence/submissions. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ad-interim orders are generally passed on the initial date of the case while issuing notices to the other side and after the notice, the other side can appear before the concerned Court and put-forth its defence/submissions. Since at the stage of ad-interim order, the application for interim injunction is not decided, therefore, the revision is not maintainable. The simple logic in the considered opinion of this Court is that once the other side appears before the Court, the biparte hearing takes place and then after the opportunity of hearing given to both the sides, ultimately, the Court decides the stay application/application for interim injunction or any other such application. 9. The Full Bench of the Board of Revenue had an occasion to deal with the similar and akin question in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. Bhopal Ram & Ors., (Revision/LR/9867/2012/ Nagaur) decided on 12.03.2014 and the finding arrived at by the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue on the same point is relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the case, which too reads as under: “Maintainability of Revision Petitions in the Board: 62. The Board has been entrusted with the powers to call for the record of its subordinate courts and examine their impugned orders under the revisional jurisdiction provided under Section 230 of the Act. In general such revisional jurisdiction is entrusted to all the High Courts, Tribunals and Revenue Boards to have control over their subordinate courts. The Act of 1955 provides Section 230 as revisional jurisdiction to the Board. The provision of Section 230 is reproduced as under:- “230. Power of the Board to call for cases - The Board may call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate 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; (b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit.” 63. The plain reading of the above provisions of law unequivocally suggests that a revision petition can be filed against a case decided by any subordinate Revenue Court under this Act in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court. Earlier this provision of law was analogous to the revisional powers provided to High courts under section 115 of the Code. 64. This is also very relevant to mention here that Government of India constituted a committee headed by Justice Malimath for expeditious disposal of civil litigation. This committee noticed that record of the lower courts is often sent to the High Courts in revision proceedings resulting in virtual stay of proceedings in the Trial Courts. The committee also had a view that scope of interference by revisional Courts against interlocutory orders should be bare minimum. On the basis of the committee’s report, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 was introduced in the Parliament and Section 115 of the Code was also amended in light of the observations of the committee. But the provision under section 230 of the Act still remains intact. 65. Under the revisional jurisdiction, basically two types of petitions are filed before the Board. Firstly, against the final or interim orders passed by the Trial Courts or Appellate Courts in the proceedings under the provisions of this Act. Secondly, against the orders passed by the Trial Courts or Appellate Courts on interlocutory applications under various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the proceedings under this Act. In the case in hand, this court has to examine the maintainability of revision petitions filed under Section 230 of the Act assailing the ad- interim ex-parte orders passed by the Trial Courts or Appellate Courts. 66. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. Vs. Swaroop Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2324 that exercise of revisionary jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and a revising court is not bound to interfere with the impugned order only on the ground that conditions provided in the provisions of revision are satisfied. The Apex Court also observed that if the impugned order is interlocutory and the aggrieved party has other efficacious remedy in form of an appeal, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. The Apex Court also observed that if the impugned order is interlocutory and the aggrieved party has other efficacious remedy in form of an appeal, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. It has also been held that revision is not competent to correct errors of facts, however, gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the court to try such disputes. The Apex Court has held that revisional jurisdiction is not equal to the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, only jurisdictional errors with material irregularity can be corrected under the revisional jurisdiction. 67. The scope of the revision jurisdiction is very restrictive in nature as has been held in Bakhtawan Vs. Mandir Murti Shri Thakur Ji (1968 RRD 394). The revisional court has the powers to entertain a revision only:- (1) Where jurisdiction is vested but not exercised, or (2) Exercised jurisdiction when not vested, or (3) Where material irregularity or illegality is committed in exercise of jurisdiction. 68. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76 that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law but one thing is clear that it has jurisdiction to make that order. Where it was not the case that the First Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with manifest irregularity, in such cases, the revisional court has no jurisdiction. 69. Hon’ble Apex Court also held in the case of Suresh Chandra Nanhorya Vs. Rajendra Rajak and others, 2006 (7) SCC 800 that a revisional court cannot ignore the basic principle of natural justice which is essence of fair adjudication and which is deeply rooted in tradition and conscience of the judicial system. Therefore, any order which is passed against a party by the revisional court cannot be passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. 70. In the case of Harak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1970 RLW 320, the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court has held that revisional jurisdiction of the court can be invoked only when the subordinate court appears to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 70. In the case of Harak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1970 RLW 320, the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court has held that revisional jurisdiction of the court can be invoked only when the subordinate court appears to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It was also held that whether particular evidence is admissible in accordance with law or not, is a question of law which the Trial Court is entitled to decide and if any manifest error has been committed in deciding that question, it cannot form a ground for revisional jurisdiction. In Bhimraj and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others (1998 RRD 355), Hon’ble High Court has held that as a revisional authority, the Board of Revenue may not agree with the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate but that itself does not form a ground for the Board to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. 71. In Raja Ramkaran Vs. B. Ramulu, AIR 1982 A.P. 256 ) the Hon’ble High Court has held that unless there is a manifest error or material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction, revision petitions cannot be entertained. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under:- “8…. There is absolutely no semblance of irregularity in the exercise of power of jurisdiction and the error, factual or legal, if any in the course of passing the order does not impinge upon the jurisdiction vested in the court. The alleged intention of the defendant to avert or by pass the proceedings before the trial court cannot be considered as a material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the appellate court. The ethics of a litigant in choosing forum is not a factor can be countenanced for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court. The alleged dilatory attitude of the party cannot sterilize the legitimate jurisdiction of the court. ….It is well settled as laid down by Division Bench of this court that the aggrieved party can file an appeal as against an interim order and such appeal is competent and the appellate court is competent to entertain it and to pass appropriate order. ..” 72. Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently held in the case of Sumatiben Maganlal Manani Vs. Uttam Chand Kashi Prasad Shah and Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 328 as under:- “34. ..” 72. Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently held in the case of Sumatiben Maganlal Manani Vs. Uttam Chand Kashi Prasad Shah and Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 328 as under:- “34. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court. On the basis of the material available on record, as discussed in detail in the judgment of the appellate court, it was perfectly justified in arriving at the finding of sub-letting against defendant No.1. On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, committed a mistake in interfering with the setting aside the findings of fact properly arrived at by the courts below. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable by any reckoning.” 73. In light of the guiding pronouncements of the superior courts as discussed hereinabove, and existing legal provisions of Section 230 of the Act, this bench is of the considered opinion that:- (1) No revision is maintainable before the Board against ad- interim ex-parte orders passed by the Trial Courts or the Appellate Courts. As per the provisions of law only such decided cases under this Act can be assailed in revision before the Board., where no efficacious remedy of appeal is available. (2) Revisional jurisdiction is not equal to the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, only jurisdictional errors with material irregularity can be corrected under the revisional jurisdiction. (3) Unless there is a manifest error or material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction, revision petitions cannot be entertained. (4) An order of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court cannot be assailed in revision on the ground that the Court below has recorded erroneous findings on facts or law, if that Court had jurisdiction to pass the order sought to be revised. 74. (4) An order of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court cannot be assailed in revision on the ground that the Court below has recorded erroneous findings on facts or law, if that Court had jurisdiction to pass the order sought to be revised. 74. ***** ***** **** **** Question no 1:- ***** ***** ***** **** Answer:- ***** ***** ***** **** Question no 2:- ***** ***** ***** **** Answer:- ***** ***** ***** **** Question no 3:- Whether a revision petition under section 230 of the Act is maintainable before the Board against an ex-parte or ad-interim ex-parte order passed by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court; and whether provisions of section 221 of the Act can be exercised by the Board in routine matters of revisions relating to interim orders along with section 230 of the Act or independently under section 221 of the Act? Answer:- (a) No. A revision is not at all maintainable before the Board of Revenue under Section 230 of the Act against any ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court. (b) The Board of Revenue has adequate powers of general superintendence under section 221 of the Act, but they are not a substitute of or a by-pass or shortcut of Section 230 of the Act. The powers under Section 221 can be sparingly exercised only in rare cases where a gross illegality in apparent disregard to a specific mandatory legal provision or in disobedience of the Superior Court has been committed by the lower court; and where a miscarriage of justice has taken place or the public interest has suffered.” 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. 11. However, in the interest of justice, this court deems it appropriate to direct the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur to decide the pending Appeal No. 329/2022 titled as Chhawarlal Kachhwah Vs. Kishore Singh expeditiously, within a period of seven days from the receipt of the certified/web copy of this order. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents gives an undertaking that till the period of seven days, they will not raise any new construction over the land in dispute.