ORDER : – The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain whereby he reversed the order dated 13-9-2017 passed by Additional Collector and the order dated 31-5-2003 passed by Sub Divisional Officer allowing the application of the petitioner for correction in the area of survey number under section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. 2. The facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, he purchased the land bearing survey No. 681/6 of area 1.619 Aari, located at Village – Bardiya Amra, Tehsil-Garoth vide registered sale deed dated 6-9-1974 (hereinafter referred as ‘the subject land’). Consequently, in Batankan proceedings, the land purchased by the petitioner was numbered as survey No. 681/6/1. His name was mutated in the revenue record. According to him, in the year 2003, he became aware that the area of survey No. 598 has been erroneously reduced. He moved an application for correction under section 89 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code before Sub-Divisional Officer, Garoth. The Sub-Divisional Officer called for the report from Patwari. According to him, the testimony of the father of the private respondents-Keshuram was recorded wherein he clearly stated that he has never given possession of survey number 681/7 (new No. 586) at the spot and no land of survey number 681/7 (new No. 586) exists at the spot. The Sub-Divisional Officer corrected the area of petitioner’s ownership vide order dated 31-5-2003. He submits that the said order was never challenged by Shri Keshuram during his lifetime. Subsequently, after lapse of more than 13 years, the order dated 31-5-2003 was challenged by the respondents in an appeal before the Collector along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Collector dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents vide order dated 13-9-2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1. The said appeal was delayed by about 45 days. The respondent No. 1 without issuing notice and given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, admitted the appeal for hearing without any adjudication on application under section 5 of the Limitation Act vide order dated 23-2-2018. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 12-4-2019 for hearing on the point of limitation. The respondent No. 1 without issuing notice and given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, admitted the appeal for hearing without any adjudication on application under section 5 of the Limitation Act vide order dated 23-2-2018. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 12-4-2019 for hearing on the point of limitation. The respondent No. 1 dismissed the same by the impugned order. 3. The respondents filed reply and submitted that the petition suffers from suppression of material facts. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that he has already filed a Civil Suit No. 139A/2020 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-2, Garoth on 10-11-2020 before filing of the present petition, the present petition was presented on 25-11-2020, but the aforesaid fact has been suppressed in the present petition. He has also drawn attention of para-7 of the plaint that the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain. It is further submitted that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Collector as no notice was issued to the father of the respondents - Keshuram and further the Additional Commissioner has rightly heard the matter on merit. He further submitted that a fraud has been committed by the petitioner and there is manipulation of revenue record by him. All these facts have been taken into consideration by the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order. He has referred to the various revenue record to submit that he is in possession of the land in question. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed for permanent injunction and not for declaration of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner as null and void. It is further submitted that Additional Commissioner did not decide the issue pertaining to the limitation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Upon perusal of the copy of the plaint, it is evident that civil suit was filed on 10-11-2020 whereas the present petition was presented on 25-11-2020, but the petitioner has not mentioned about filing of the suit. On the contrary in para-2 of the writ petition, he has made a declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court or Tribunal. Thus, the petition suffers from suppression of material fact of filing of civil suit in respect of the same land. On the contrary in para-2 of the writ petition, he has made a declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court or Tribunal. Thus, the petition suffers from suppression of material fact of filing of civil suit in respect of the same land. On a specific query made by this Court that what is the stage of the civil suit and where issues have been framed in the said suit, parties have shown inability to show the stage of the suit and could not make submission that whether the issues have been framed or not in the trial of the suit. 7. Upon perusal of the record of Additional Commissioner which is filed along with the writ petition, it is evident that initially a notice was issued for condonation of delay, however, later the case was admitted on 28-2-2020. The petitioner did not challenge the said order and succumb to the final arguments of the case and thereafter the impugned order dated 4-11-2020 was passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Apart from that, number of disputed questions of facts have been argued before this Court which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned warranting any interference in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.