ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 24.7.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 1088/2008 whereby learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The writ petition was directed against the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Collector, Sheopur, order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue respectively affirming the order dated 22.11.2000 whereby the Collector initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the order dated 15.2.1999 passed by Naib Tahsildar whereby Naib Tahsildar mutated the name of present appellant in Revenue Record on an application under sections 169, 190, 109 and 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 4. It was taking of cognizance vide Suo Motu Revision which was questioned by the appellant learned Single Judge dismissed the petition with cost holding that “the Collector has rightly taken the matter in Suo Motu Revision and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar.” It is this later part of the order which the petitioner takes exception. And rightly, because the revision is still pending consideration on merit before the Collector, Sheopur. Besides said revision, an appeal preferred by the respondent is also pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. 5. Clause (a) of proviso (i) of sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Code, 1959 stipulates that “no application for revision shall be entertained against an order appealable under this Code.” It is urged that the impugned orders when tested on the anvil of the said provision, the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain a Suo Motu Revision. The contentions are taken note of and rejected. Sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Code is in two parts, viz., firstly it confers Suo Motu Revisional powers and secondly, power of revision can be exercised after receiving application. The exception carved out in Clause (a) of proviso (i) of sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Code is in respect of an “application” and not when Suo Motu powers are exercised. In “Ranveer Singh since dead through LRs. The exception carved out in Clause (a) of proviso (i) of sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Code is in respect of an “application” and not when Suo Motu powers are exercised. In “Ranveer Singh since dead through LRs. Kishori Singh and others v. State of M.P. [ 2010 RN 409 ]=[ 2010 (3) JLJ 77 = 2010(4) MPLJ 178 ]”, Full Bench held : “11. ......True, the Legislature has not fixed any upper limit of the period when this power should be exercised and section is totally silent in this regard, although period of limitation has been fixed by the Legislature when a revision application is filed by a party concerned. According to clause (II) of sub-section (1) to section 50 of the Code, an aggrieved party can file revision application within 60 days before the Commissioner or / the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or Settlement Officer or within 90 days to the Board of Revenue excluding the requisite time for obtaining copy of the order against which revision is filed. But merely because the Legislature has not fixed an upper limit for exercising suo motu powers by the revisional authority, according to us, it will not confer unfettered right to the revisional authority to exercise this power at any moment of time according to his whims because it would amount to give a sword having no scabbard. Indeed, after having an order in favour of a litigant he must be permitted to live in peace with an understanding that since the order passed in his favour has not been challenged for a considerable long period, now it cannot be challenged. His right, whatever he enjoys, may be on account of some illegal order in his favour should attain some finality so that his faith in the judicial system may not be ruined that although an order is in my favour, but it can be set aside at any moment of time even after passing of several years.” 6. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the revision is not maintainable before Collector has no legal foundation; therefore, negatived. 7. The fact, however, is that the revision is pending consideration; therefore, the findings by learned Single Judge that the order passed by the Tahsildar has been set aside by Collector in said revision suffers from vice of perversity; therefore, set aside. 8. 7. The fact, however, is that the revision is pending consideration; therefore, the findings by learned Single Judge that the order passed by the Tahsildar has been set aside by Collector in said revision suffers from vice of perversity; therefore, set aside. 8. In view whereof, the order passed by Collector as to maintainability of the Suo Motu revision, its affirmation in appeal and revision is also upheld. The impugned order passed in Writ Petition No. 1088/2008 is modified to the extent above. 9. Consequently, appeal is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.