ORDER

1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.4.2024 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, whereby his revision preferred against the order dated 14.2.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, District Indore has been dismissed as not maintainable.

2. The record indicates that an application was filed by respondent No.5 before the Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Kanadia for his mutation over the disputed property under section 109, 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The application was dismissed by order dated 6.10.2022 being aggrieved by which respondent No.5 preferred an appeal under section 44 (1) of the Code before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kanadia. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 1 rule 10 of the CPC was preferred by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party therein which was allowed by the S.D.O. by order dated 10.3.2023. being aggrieved by which respondent No.5 has preferred a revision under section 50 of the Code before the Additional Collector, District Indore. In those proceedings, an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC was preferred by the petitioner for dismissal of the proceedings.

3. As per the petitioner, arguments on the aforesaid application were heard and the case was fixed for orders thereupon but no order was passed and the matter was proceeded with and eventually by order dated 14.2.2024 was directed to be fixed for final arguments. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 50 of the Code before the Additional Commissioner which has been dismissed as not maintainable by the impugned order on the ground that under section 50(2)(c) of the Code there is no provision for preferring a revision against any order passed in a revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revision preferred before the Additional Commissioner was not against any final order passed in a revision but was only against an interim order, hence the bar under section 50(2)(c) of the Code was not attracted and the revision was very much maintainable and ought to have been decided by the Additional Commissioner on merits.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that the revision was preferred against an order passed in a revision. As per the express language of section 50(2)(c) of the Code no revision can be entertained against an order passed in revision. The revision has hence rightly been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Various other submissions have also been made as regards proceedings of the case since the very inception but looking to the limited issue as regards maintainability of the revision, they are not being adverted to. Learned counsel for respondent No.9.1 has supported the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. For the purpose of appreciating the dispute between the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 50 of the Code, 1959 which are as under:-

"50. [ Revision.

(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5), -

(a)the Board may, at any time on its own motion or on an application made by any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by the Commissioner;

(b)the Commissioner may, at any time on his own motion or on an application made by any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by the Collector or the District Survey Officer;

(c)the Collector or the District Survey Officer may, at any time on his own motion or on an application of any party, call fo