ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 11.7.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Tehsil Shadora, District Ashoknagar seeking disposal of the mutation proceedings in view of the pendency of a civil suit has been declined. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a registered agreement to sale in respect of land in question has been executed in his favour by the respondents No.1 to 3 on 9.12.2024. Inspite of the same, the registered sale deed in respect of the very same land has been executed by the respondents No.1 to 3 in favour of the respondent No.4, and on the strength of the registered sale deed, respondent No.4 has applied for mutation of the land in question in his favour before the respondent No.5, which proceedings are pending. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner had already approached the Civil Court in RCSA No.77/2025 seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sale in which, on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with section 151 CPC filed for grant of temporary injunction, learned trial Court has passed an order dated 16.9.2025 wherein, a temporary injunction from alienating the land in question has been issued against the respondents No.1 to 4. He further submits that the prayer to restrain the ongoing proceedings of mutation has been declined by the same order. He further submits that the petitioners have moved an application under section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 read with section 151 of CPC (hereinafter referred to as the "MPLR Code, 1959") before the Tahsildar, seeking dismissal/closure of the pending mutation proceedings instituted by respondent No.4 which has been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since a civil suit in respect of litigation is already pending, the Tahsildar ought to have stayed/disposed of the mutation proceedings pending final decision in the civil suit. Since the objection raised by the petitioners has been rejected, the instant writ petition has been filed. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since a civil suit in respect of litigation is already pending, the Tahsildar ought to have stayed/disposed of the mutation proceedings pending final decision in the civil suit. Since the objection raised by the petitioners has been rejected, the instant writ petition has been filed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State raises a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the instant writ petition, directly filed before this Court challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Tahsildar in the pending mutation proceedings. He submits that the remedy as provided under the MPLR Code, 1959 ought to have been invoked by the petitioners and, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. 7. In rejoinder arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since he has not prayed for disposal of the pending proceedings before the Tahsildar, the remedy of revision is not available to the petitioners. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The prayer made by the petitioners in his application under section 32 of the MPLR Code, 1959 read with section 151 CPC filed before the Tahsildar as under:- ^^vr% Jhekuth ls fouez fuosnu gS fd vkosndtu@vkifÙkdrkZtu dh v¨j ls çLrqr vkifÙk@vkosnu i= Lohdkj dj vkosndtu@vkifÙkdrkZtu d¢ fgr¨a d¨ oSèkkfud laj{k.k fn;k tkus gsrq ukekUrj.k dh dk;Zokgh blh LVst ij lekIr djus dh Ñik djsaA fnukad 25-6-2025A** 10. It is, thus, clear that the prayer which was made by the petitioners before the Tahsildar was for rejection/closure of the pending mutation proceedings instituted by the respondent No.4. Section 50 (3) (a) of the MPLR Code, 1959 reads as under:- "50. It is, thus, clear that the prayer which was made by the petitioners before the Tahsildar was for rejection/closure of the pending mutation proceedings instituted by the respondent No.4. Section 50 (3) (a) of the MPLR Code, 1959 reads as under:- "50. Revision (1) xx xx xx - (a) xx xx xx; (b) xx xx xx; (c) xx xx xx; (i) xx xx xx; (ii) xx xx xx; (iii) xx xx xx; (2) xx xx xx - (a) xx xx xx; (b) xx xx xx; (c) xx xx xx; (d) xx xx xx; (e) xx xx xx; (3) The Board or the Commissioner or Collector or the District Survey Officer shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an issue, in the course of proceeding, except where- (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the proceedings; or; (b) xx xx xx. (4) xx xx xx. (5) xx xx xx." 11. Thus, it is clear that since the petitioners are seeking final disposal of the pending proceeding before the Tahsildar in his application filed before him which has been rejected by the order impugned, the remedy of filing a revision against the said order, in term of section 50 of the MPLR Code, 1959, is available to the petitioner. That apart, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Santosh v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2024 (3) MPLJ 382 , has held that a writ petition filed against an interlocutory order by the revenue authority in proceedings under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is not maintainable. In view of the availability of statutory remedy of revision under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, provided under the statute itself in the given facts and circumstances of the case the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declined to be exercised. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to take recourse of the remedy as is available to them under the Code. 12. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.