[2025:RJ-JP:35094] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13091/2025 Mukesh Kumar S/o Girdhari Lal, R/o Village Kudli, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Vihan Choudhary S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Through Guardian Mother Kalpna W/o Mukesh Kumar, R/o Village Kudli, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Prakash S/o Girdhari Lal, Resident Of Village Kudli, District Sikar (Raj.) 3. Vikash S/o Girdhari Lal, Resident Of Village Kudli, District Sikar (Raj.) 4. Sharwani Devi W/o Girdhari Lal, Resident Of Village Kudli, District Sikar (Raj.) 5. Rajendra Kumar S/o Dana Ram, Resident Of Village Kudli, District Sikar (Raj.) 6. Shishram S/o Dala Ram, Resident Of Village Kudli, District Sikar (Raj.) 7. Ramavtar Dhaka S/o Laxman Singh, R/o Alakhpura, Bogan, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar 8. Neeti W/o Abhay Gupta, R/o 1617 Tansain Nagar, State Bank Circle, Khaliyar, Madhya Pradesh 9. Rajkumar Jakhar S/o Rameshwar Jakhar, R/o Dasa Ki Dhani, Tehsil And District Sikar 10. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehsildar, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Khedar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/09/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:35094] (2 of 3) [CW-13091/2025] 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the interim order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 23.06.2025 against which a revision petition has been submitted by the respondents before the Board. Counsel submits that the revision petition against an interim order/ interlocutory order is not maintainable and an objection in this regard was taken before the Board. Counsel submits that keeping the aforesaid objection into consideration, the arguments were heard on admission and the judgment was reserved for 17.07.2025 and thereafter without deciding the said objection, an interim order has been passed on 01.08.2025 directing the parties to maintain status quo and not to sell/ alienate the property and the record of the Sub-Ordinate Court has been summoned. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner about the maintainability of the revision petition has not been decided by the Board and instead of doing so, an interim order has been passed vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2025. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Board is supposed to decide the preliminary objection taken by the [2025:RJ-JP:35094] (3 of 3) [CW-13091/2025] petitioner about the maintainability of the petition at the earliest opportunity, i.e., on the next date. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /30