ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the 2nd District Judge, Shajapur in MCA.No.23 of 2025 whereby the appeal filed by the respondents has been allowed and the application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs has been dismissed and the order dated 8.10.2024 passed in RCS-A 126/2024 by the 2nd Civil Judge, Jr. Division, District - Shajapur has been set aside.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant respondents stating that land bearing survey No.1462 Rakba 0.094 and No. 1464 Rakba 0.10 hectare situated at Nagar Maksi, Tehsil and District Shajapur is of the ownership and possession of the petitioners and also recorded in the revenue record and the same is the suit property. It was further stated that the petitioners are doing the agricultural operation since the time of their forefather and the same allotted to them by the Jagri of the Gwalior States and from the last 4-5 generations they are in the possession of the suit property and doing the agricultural work. It is further stated that after coming into the force of M.P.L.R.C, 1959 the petitioners are in possession of the suit property therefore, as per the provisions of the MPLRC, the petitioners became the Bhumi Swami and their names were recorded in the revenue record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners names have been recorded in the revenue records as legal representative and partition of the suit property has already been taken place and petitioners are in possession of their shares. He submits that a notice was issued by the respondents on 10.7.2024 to the petitioners alleging that as to how their names are recorded over the suit property and case No.20/B-121/24-25 has been registered and the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners. It is submitted that the application filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC has been rejected. He submits that in the alleged inquiry conducted by the Tehsildar it was found that the suit property was recorded in the revenue record for pond and petitioners are encroachers. He submits that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper. The respondents have no documentary evidence to establish that the suit property belongs to the State. He submits that the presumption of section 117 of MPLRC is also in their favour and if the petitioners are dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit then the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss. He submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court be affirmed and the order of the dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Shajapur be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioners were never been the owners of the suit property and they were encroachers of the suit property. He submits that the learned trial Court has erred in allowing the application of the petitioners under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and the order passed by the appellate Court is just and proper and no interference is required in the same and prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the documents of revenue record which are available on record it is evident that plaintiff's are the 'Bhu-Swami' of the suit property presently. There is not evidence on record produced by the respondents that the suit property belongs to Government whereas the suit property in question is a share of the petitioner received in the partition in the family and the learned District Judge, Shajapur has taken a contrary view and allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the application filed by the r