Section 225 of the 1995 Act to the Revenue Appellate Authority against an order including an interim one passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, a revision petition before the Board would not be maintainable. Reference in this regard can be had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3032, wherein it has been held that any interim order passed by a Civil Court is appealable in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. A party aggrieved of an ad-interim injunction can either move the appellate court or approach the same court which has passed the same by way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC if the order be an ex-parte one. In fact the Board itself in its impugned order has held that the revision petition laid before it against an ad-interim order was not maintainable. It is true that the defendant had also moved an application under Section 10 CPC for the reason that prior to laying of the partition suit by the plaintiff, one of the cokhatedar had earlier also filed a similar suit. In the circumstances the Board could indeed have required the trial court to dispose the said application within a short time but could not have interfered with the ad interim order of status quo passed by the trial court for reason of its lack of jurisdiction in a revision owing to availability of an appeal against the impugned order.”
