The ruling establishes that both a pending civil suit and a stay order are required to withhold partition proceedings under the Land Revenue Code.

However, vide order dated 30.04.2025, the same was permitted to be converted into a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereafter the instant writ petition has been registered.

2 . The instant writ petition challenges the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, District Bhind (M.P.), holding that in proceedings for partition under Section 178 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 , since there is no stay by the Civil Court in the pending civil suit, the proceedings for partition cannot be withheld and thereby remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for proceeding with the application for partition filed under Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 , by the respondents and pass order in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his application under Signature Not Verified Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is pending consideration before the Civil Court in Civil Suit No.60A/2022-2023, and therefore, the order impugned in the instant writ petition deserves to be interfered with and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the order dated 18.05.2023 impugned in the instant writ petition, is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Virendra Singh and Others vs. Krishnapal Singh and Others , reported in 2020 (3) MPLJ 348, wherein it has been held that for withholding partition proceedings, filed under Section 178 of MPLRC two conditions must be fulfilled: (i) pendency of a civil suit, and (ii) a temporary injunction. Mere filing of a civil suit, without there being any order of stay, does not operate as a stay in the proceedings of partition.

5. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7 . The operative para of the judgment of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh (supra) reads as under:-

“ Section 178 of MPLRC :

178. Partition of holding.- (1) If in any holding, which has been assessed for purpose of agriculture under section 59, there are more than one Bhumiswami any such Bhumiswami may apply to a Tahsildar for a partition of his share in the holding:

Provided that if any question of title is raised the Tahsildar shall stay the proceedings before him for a period of three months to facilitate the institution of a civil suit for determination of the question of title.

(1-A) If a civil suit is filed within the period specified in the proviso to sub-section (1), and stay order is obtained from the civil court, the Tahsildar shall stay his proceedings pending the decision of the civil court. If no civil suit is filed within the said period, he shall vacate the stay order and proceed to partition the holding in accordance with the entries in the record of rights.

(2) The Tahsildar, may, after hearing the co-tenure holders, divide Signature Not Verified the holding and apportion the assessment of the holding in accordance with the rules made under this Code.

(3) xxx (4) xxx (5) xxx Explanation I.- For purposes of this section any co-sharer of the holding of a Bhumiswami who has obtained a declaration of his title in such holding from a competent Civil Court shall be deemed to be a co-tenure holder of such holding.

Explanation II.- xxx From the plain reading of the Section, it is clear that if the civil suit is filed and the order is obtained from the civil court, then the further proceedings before the revenue authorities for partition of the holding shall be kept in abeyance, therefore, the pendency of the civil suit as well as temporary injunction are two necessary ingredients for staying the further proceedings of the partition proceedings.

In the present case, according to the petitioner, the second appeal filed by him which has been registered as SA No.1214/2018 is still pen