Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Jayanti Bai vs Prahlad Singh on 17 November, 2025
1 MP-5487-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5487 of 2025
SMT.JAYANTI BAI
Versus
PRAHLAD SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Zamir Mohammad Shah and Shri Sandeep Koshta - Advocates
for the petitioner.
Shri Shailendra Verma - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The matter relates to mutation on land by the revenue authorities.
Admittedly, the petitioner had succeeded in Civil Suit from the Civil Court
against the respondent, but, later on, in Civil Appeal under Section 96 CPC
filed before the District Court, the said Court had reversed the judgment of
Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 and decreed the suit
of respondent/plaintiff against the present petitioner, who is daughter of the
respondent/plaintiff.
2. The counsel for the petitioner though was not in a position to controvert
that as per Section 111 of the MPLRC in the matter of dispute of title
between private persons, the revenue authorities are bound to comply the
judgment of Civil Court, but raised a singular contention based upon
judgment of coordinate Bench in M.P. No.5039/2023 that once the lis is
2 MP-5487-2025
pending in Second Appeal before this Court, then till the Second Appeal is
decided, the authorities should not modify the mutation entries.
3. Upon considering the aforesaid assertion, it is seen that in M.P.
No.5039/2023 this Court has held that when the matter at civil side has not
been finalized as in that case was pending in Second Appeal, therefore, the
revenue authorities should not have changed the mutation entries which is to
be found in para 10 of the aforesaid order.
4. However, in the said case, the order was passed by the Additional
Commissioner on 26.05.2023 and Second Appeal No.1892/2021 was
pending since the year 2021 before this Court which had even been admitted
on 10.01.2023 by the High Court and, therefore, in view of admission of
Second Appeal by framing substantial questions of law, it could be argued
by the petitioner therein that lis is pending in the Second Appeal.
5. However, in the present case, though Second Appeal has been filed
before this Court in the year 2023 itself as Second Appeal No.1860/2023, but
the said Second Appeal has not yet been admitted by this Court and,
therefore, it cannot be said that such a litigation is pending so that the
revenue authorities should have laid their hands off the property in the matter
of mutation. Indefinite pendency of second appeal without being admitted
would not operate as stay on proceedings of Revenue Courts/Authorities.
6. In view of peculiar facts of this case, interference in the order Annexure
P-8 is declined. The petitioner is set at liberty to prosecute the Second
Appeal and in case the Second Appeal is admitted with stay being granted
therein, to approach the revenue authorities for modification of revenue
3 MP-5487-2025
entries.
7. For a period of 15 days from today, the revenue entries shall not be
changed in terms of order Annexure P-8 in case they have not been changed
till date. If the order Annexure P-8 has already been executed, then this
paragraph of the order will lose its force.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
