Short Note : The main grievance which was advanced before the Court is that when there is a valid decree by the civil Court, the revenue authorities have no right to stay the mutation proceedings. The learned counsel referred to the Court section 111 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. This section says that the civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights. Basing his submission on this section, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is a decree in his favour then as of right his name should have been mutated. This Court thinks that he is right in his submission, and, therefore, the order of the Board of Revenue cannot stand and so this Court sets aside that order. But the question now is that what exactly should be done in such a matter when there are two decrees, one in favour of each party and a third is pending to decide that the decree obtained in second suit is not binding because of fraud. This Court feels, under such circumstances, it will be just and proper to stay the proceedings regarding the mutation till the final decision of the pending civil suit. Therefore, this Court allows this petition, quash the order passed by the Board of Revenue and instead under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court passes the order as mentioned above. Petition allowed.