ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.9.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, (Biora) District Rajgarh in a Revision No.61/Nigrani/22-23, arising out of order dated 16.8.2022, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in case No.56/Appeal/21-20. 3

2. In brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim themselves to be the owners of the land situated at survey No.956/1/1 and 957/1/1. The dispute arose between the parties in respect of the same land, the respondents No.1 and 2 got their names mutated in the revenue record vide dated 30.3.2019 passed by the Tahsildar.

3. According to the petitioners, they were not aware of such mutation, and subsequently, when they came to know about the same, an appeal was preferred by them before the SDO along with an application for stay as well as for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963(hereinafter to be referred to as “Act of 1963’).The SDO has allowed the application filed under section 5, and has condoned the delay of around three years vide order dated 16.8.2022, which was challenged by the respondents before the Additional Collector, Rajgarh, who, vide its order dated 6.9.2022, while holding that the order allowing the application for condonation of delay was erroneous and has rejected the same by setting aside the order, as a consequence, has also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the SDO.

4. Shri Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Additional Collector has acted in excess of its jurisdiction by entertaining the revision against an interlocutory order passed in an appeal despite the fact that the scope of revision is limited as provided under section 50 of the M.P Land Revenue Code, 1959.

5. In support of his submission counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramgopal Sharma v. Kamla Bai 2015 RN 706 = 2016(1) MPLJ 320.

6. It is also submitted that the SDO has rightly condoned the delay because although the petitioners have mentioned the delay to be of three years, however, in effect the delay was of only 18 days, as no sooner the petitioners came to know about the order dated 30.3.2019, they obtained the certified copy of the same and has challenged the same before the SDO in the appeal, along with an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963.

7. Shri Sharma has also drawn the attention of this court to the impugned order dated 6.9.2022, as according to the Revisional Court, even assuming that the petitioners got the certified copy of the order on 3.12.2021, in that case also the appeal ought to have been preferred on or before 17.1.2022, whereas it has been preferred on 3.2.2022, and no cogent reasons have been assigned in explaining the delay. Thus, it is submitted that the delay which has been caused is of 18 days only which has been rightly condoned by the SDO, even though it was not properly explained in the application filed under section 5 of the Act of 1963.

8. Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the matter ought to have been allowed to be decided on merits only as the petitioners substantial right has been prejudiced by the impugned order.

9. In support of his submissions, Shri Sharma has relied upon the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jani bai and another v. State of M.P. and others order dated (W.P.No.11774/2022 order dated 17.3.2023) and the decision rendered by the Gwalior Bench of this court in the case of Brij Mohan and others v. Smt. Kastoori and others (M.P.No.3718/2019 dated 3.2.2020).

10. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer, and has submitted that no case for interference is made out. Attention of this Court has