IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 1982 of 2025 AHILYABAI AND OTHERS Versus SHAILENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Rinkesh Goyal- Govt. Advocate for respondent No.6/ State.

None for the rest of respondents despite notice.

ORDER The instant miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) challenging the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar (the "Trial Court") in Regular Civil Suit No. 68-A of 2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.

2. A few facts giving rise to the present petition, as narrated therein, are that petitioners plaintiffs, filed a civil suit against the respondents (defendants) seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction in respect of disputed land, which is located in Survey Number 305, measuring 1.494 hectares, situated in Village Khajuria, Pargana Bahadurpur, District Ashok Nagar. The plaintiffs claim to have acquired ownership and possession of the disputed land through registered sale deeds dated 26.06.1998 and 12.01.1999. They further claim that their names are recorded as the owners and occupants of the disputed land in the revenue records. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants have no connection with the disputed land and are attempting to forcibly take possession of 2 bighas of the land and the tube well situated thereon. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants, who are powerful and quarrelsome, are trying to encroach upon the plaintiffs' land. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their ownership and possession. On the contrary, defendants, in their written statement, deny the plaintiffs' allegations and claim that the land adjacent to the disputed land is Survey Number 304/1/1. The defendants assert that the disputed land lies in Survey Number 304, not 305, as claimed by the plaintiffs. In response to the conflicting claims regarding the location of the disputed land, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, requesting the appointment of a Revenue Officer as Commissioner to demarcate the disputed land. The plaintiffs contend that the boundary of the disputed land is in dispute, particularly as the defendants claim it to be in Survey Number 304, while the plaintiffs assert it is in Survey Number 305. The plaintiffs requested that the Revenue Officer be directed to submit a report after conducting the demarcation of the disputed land. In a similar vein, the defendants also filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, seeking the appointment of a Revenue Officer for demarcation. The trial court, after considering both applications, dismissed them on the grounds that the dispute over the boundaries could be resolved by the parties during the course of the trial, without the need for appointing a Revenue Officer or demarcating the land.

3. Aggrieved by the trial court's order, the petitioners have filed the present miscellaneous petition, seeking to set aside the order and for the appointment of a Revenue Officer to demarcate the land in dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. The dispute over the boundary of the land is a crucial aspect of the case and can only be resolved by appointing a Revenue Officer as Commissioner to conduct the demarcation. The disputed land is located in Survey Number 305, while the defendants claim it is in Survey Number 304, which is adjacent to the disputed land. The defendants have allegedly manipulated the records of their land (Survey Number 304) and fraudul