IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5747 of 2025 ANMOL SINGH AND OTHERS Versus NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jay Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Praveen Namdeo - G.A. for the respondent/State.

Shri Pawan Kumar Singh Sengar - Advocate for the respondent No.4.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tahsil Gurh, District Rewa in Case No.014/B-121/2025-26, whereby an appeal submitted by the co-owners, (wherein the petitioner is not the party) under Section 44(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, has been dismissed. Secondly, the petitioner has also challenged the basic order of mutation dated 31.7.2018, whereby the Tahsildar has directed for mutation of the subject matter, i.e. agricultural land to be recorded in the name of the respondents to the extent of 1/6th share along with other co-owners.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order Annexure P-2 dated 31.7.2018 was passed without impleading the petitioner as a party. It is submitted that the said order was passed on the basis of judgment and decree dated 31.3.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.176A/2014 and the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 passed in C.S.No.310A/1987. It is admitted by the petitioner that father of the petitioners was party to the said suit. It is further submitted that the father was never served in the suit as he expired in 2018 and was ex-parte in the suit. It is further submitted that during the mutation proceedings, father of the petitioner expired and was not served, therefore, such order was passed without hearing the petitioner, is bad in law. It is further submitted that co- owners of the land in question had submitted appeal against the said order, which was decided vide order dated 19.7.2024. However, on challenge being made by the respondent in W.P.No.9140/2025, this court vide order dated 25.3.2025 has relegated back the matter to the S.D.O. to decide it by reviewing the earlier order as the fact in respect of pendency of the litigation before the High Court was not considered. It is submitted that instead of filing the review application, an application under section 32 of the Code was filed to review such an order and the same has been decided by impugned order dated 28.4.2025, annexure P-8. It is submitted that such power of review could not have been exercised by the SDO under section 32 of the Code and the SDO has observed that there is a matter pending before the civil court, but still the order, annexure P-2 dated 31.7.2018 has been affirmed, and, therefore, such order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

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

4. It is evident from the record that against the impugned order dated

31.7.2018, the petitioner has not filed any appeal before the Appellate Revenue Authority and directly filed the petition before this court, which is not maintainable. Secondly, the order annexure P-8 dated 28.4.2025 has been assailed on the ground that such order has been passed on the appeal filed by the co-owners in which the petitioners rights are also involved. However, as the petitioner was not party to the appeal, the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition. But, without going into that aspect of the matter, when the merit of the matter has been tested, it is found that the petitioner's father was party to the suit in which a decree was passed and on the basis of decree the mutation has been done vide annexure P-2 dated 31.7.2018.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the said ex-parte decree, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is pending. However, mere pendency of such application cannot operate as stay of any proceedings unless such decree is set aside by the competent court o