Second appeal is maintainable against a remand order passed in partition proceedings under Section 178 of MPLRC.

The petitioners and respondents were co-sharers of land at Survey No. 579 in Village Chandpura

The petitioners initiated partition proceedings under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("Code") before the Tehsildar

Despite being granted time to approach a Civil Court regarding title objections, the respondents failed to do so, leading the Tehsildar to pass a partition order on 02.05.2018

On appeal, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) set aside the partition and remanded the matter on 29.09.2018

The petitioners then filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed it on 31.05.2022 as non-maintainable, citing a bar under Section 46 of the Code

The petitioners challenged these orders via the present writ petition

1. Whether a second appeal is maintainable under the M.P. Land Revenue Code against an order of remand passed by the first appellate authority in partition proceedings

2. Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in interpreting the statutory bar contained in Section 46 of the Code to dismiss the petitioners' appeal

Section 46 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which enumerates specific categories of orders against which no appeal or second appeal shall lie

Section 46(b) bars second appeals only against orders passed in first appeals involving Sections 131, 134, 173, 234, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, and 248

Section 44(2) provides the general right to a second appeal unless expressly barred

The Court conducted a literal interpretation of Section 46 of the Code, noting that the statutory bar is "confined only to the categories of orders specifically enumerated therein"

It observed that Section 178 (partition) is not mentioned in the list of sections under Section 46(b) that prohibit a second appeal

Consequently, the Court reasoned that there is no express provision barring a second appeal against an order of remand arising from partition proceedings

The Court found that the Additional Commissioner failed to exercise vested jurisdiction by misinterpreting Section 46 as an absolute bar, thereby committing an error of law

The High Court set aside the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Additional Commissioner for a fresh decision on the merits

The parties were directed to appear on 05.05.2026, with a direction to decide the appeal expeditiously within six weeks

The petition was disposed of accordingly