ORDER 1. Heard on I.A.No.6455/2016 objection filed by the respondent/caveator regarding maintainability of this petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. 2. It is contended that the subject matter of land in dispute is having survey No.49, area 0.539 hectares, situated at village Gotadpura, District Khandwa and the order impugned in this petition is passed by the Tahsildar, Madhata for mutation which was affirmed by the SDO, Punasa. Petitioner in this petition is praying for setting aside the order dated 23.5.2014 passed by the SDO, therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition before the Principal Bench of this High Court at Jabalpur as the revenue district of Khandwa comes under the jurisdiction of Principal Bench at Jabalpur. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the notification dated 28.11.1968 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by which a permanent Bench of M.P High Court was established at Indore and as per the notification the Indore Bench shall exercise the jurisdiction and powers in respect of cases arising in the revenue districts of Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar (Khargone), Shajapur and Rajgarh. The notification is reproduced herein below :- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi, the 28th November, 1968. NOTIFICATION The following Order made by the President is published for general information. ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of S.51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956). I, Zakir Hussain, President of India, after consultation with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, here by establish a permanent Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore and further direct that such Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, being not less than four in number, as the Chief Justice may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Indore in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the revenue district of Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar (khargone), Shajapur and Rajgarh. Provided that the Chief Justice may, for special reasons, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Jabalpur. New Delhi, Zakir Hussain November 18, 1968 President 3. Provided that the Chief Justice may, for special reasons, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Jabalpur. New Delhi, Zakir Hussain November 18, 1968 President 3. In support of his contention, counsel for the respondent/caveator has placed reliance over the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and others v. The Union of India and others, reported in 1976 JLJ 706 = AIR 1977 MP 116 , and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. 4. In reply to the above preliminary objection Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the SDO dated 23.5.2014 was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division by the respondent and the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 8.12.2015 has set aside the order passed by the SDO and maintained the order passed by the Tahsildar, therefore, part of the cause of action arose at Indore hence the petition is maintainable at Indore. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the decisions of this Court in the case of Vishnu Agrawal and another v. State of M.P and others, reported in 2009(II) MPJR 211 , State of M.P v. Shabir Khan and others, reported in 2006(2) MPLJ 50 , and K.P.Govil v. Jawaharlal Nehri Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur and another, reported in 1987 JLJ 341 , and the decision of the apex in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2004)6 SCC 254 . 5. Facts of the case in short to decide this controversy between the petitioner and respondent are as under. 6. Petitioner being the wife of late baba Laldas Yogiraj has become the owner of land bearing Survey No.49 area 0.539 hectares. After death of her husband she moved an application before the Tahsildar, Punasa, District Khandwa under sections 109 and 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for mutation of her name in place of the seller Indrajeet Juneja. In the said application respondent intervened by filing an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC and permission was granted to intervene in the matter. In the said application respondent intervened by filing an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC and permission was granted to intervene in the matter. After hearing objection, Tahsildar vide order dated 1.8.2007 directed to mutate the land land in question in the name of Madhya Pradesh Shashan Prabandhak Collector Shakshratar Mangaldasi Lalbaba (Yogiraj). After lapse of seven years respondent filed an appeal on 11.4.2014 under section 44 of the M.P Land Revenue Code before the SDO along with an application for condonation of delay. Vide order dated 23.5.2014 the SDO has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. 7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO, Punasa respondent preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Indore. Vide order dated 8.12.2015 the Additional Commissioner, Indore has set aside the order of the SDO and maintained the order passed by the Tahsildar. 8. Meanwhile, petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent for declaration and other reliefs which was registered as Civil Suit No.44-A/2014 before the IInd Civil Judge, Class-II, Khandwa. In the said suit the application for temporary injunction has been rejected and against which appeal was preferred in which order of status quo has been granted by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur. Vide order dated 7.1.2016 the said miscellaneous appeal was also disposed of with the direction to the trial Court for early disposal of the suit. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, Indore respondent preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 16.8.2016 allowed the revision and the order of the Additional Commissioner has been set aside and maintained the order of the SDO dated 23.5.2014. 10. Petitioner by this petition is seeking the relief of setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue which was passed at Gwalior and the order passed by the SDO, Punasa, District Khandwa. Admittedly, the property in dispute is situated in the revenue district of Khandwa. Petitioner is assailing the validity of the order passed by the SDO, Punasa (District Khandwa) which is admittedly within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jabalpur. The civil suit pertaining to the same land has been filed before the Civil Judge, District Khandwa. The miscellaneous appeal arising out of the order refusing temporary injunction was also preferred at Principal Seat at Jabalpur. The civil suit pertaining to the same land has been filed before the Civil Judge, District Khandwa. The miscellaneous appeal arising out of the order refusing temporary injunction was also preferred at Principal Seat at Jabalpur. In view of the notification dated 28th November, 1968 this High Court Bench at Indore was established to exercise the jurisdiction and powers vested in the High Court in respect of cases arising in the revenue districts of Indore, Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar (Khargone, Shajapur and Rajgarh. 11. Chapter III rule 1 says that all main cases shall be presented in Principal Seat or the Benches, as the case may be, strictly in accordance with Presidential order which is reproduced below :- 1. All main cases shall be presented in Principal Seat or the Benches, as the case may be, strictly in accordance with Presidential orders regarding territorial jurisdiction or the orders of the Chief Justice, passed from time to time. 12. It is argued that in view of the law laid down in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. (supra), if the revisional and appellate authority passes the order which may also give rise to part of cause of action although the original order was passed at a place outside the area. In para-27 the apex Court has held that in a case where the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another the writ petition would be maintainable at both the places because the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is constituted and the order passed by the appellate authority is also required to be set aside as the order of original authority merges with the appellate authority. It means if the petitioner is praying for setting aside of original order as well as appellate order then he will have a choice to approach any of the High Courts but in the present case the petitioner is not challenging the order passed by the revisional authority which is constituted within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench i.e. Additional Commissioner, Indore Division. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division is in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division is in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior and the order passed by the SDO at Punasa, district Khandwa, therefore, he can approach the Principal Bench of the High Court at Jabalpur as well as Gwalior Bench. In para-30 of the judgment in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. (supra), the apex Court has held that if small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court the same itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking doctrine of forum convenience. Para-30 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :- 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, Bharat Coling Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage (P) Ltd., S.S Jain and Co. v. Union of India and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India). 13. In the case of Vishnu Agrawal and another (supra), the Division Bench of this High Court has entertained the petition at Gwalior Bench against the order of Board of Revenue because the order of Board of Revenue was under challenge in the writ petition. A five Judges Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2011 Delhi 174, has held that the petition is maintainable in a High Court within whose jurisdiction appellate authority is constituted but same may not be singular fact to compell the High Court to decide the matter on merit. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. 14. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. 14. That as held above the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in this petition and has also filed the civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-I at Khandwa and earlier approach the High Court of M.P, Principal Seat at Jabalpur by way of miscellaneous appeal, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, I.A.No.6455/2016 is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to file the petition before appropriate Bench. The certified copies of the impugned orders be returned to the petitioner after replacing its photocopy on the record.