Neelendra Singh vs Devi Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1896 MP

                                  1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                   ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
             CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 903 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
NEELENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI GOPAL SINGH THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRIL. IN
FRONT OF NAGAR PALIKA DABRA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.D.SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND
DEVI SINGH S/O SHRI SHRIPAT KUKSHWAH, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, TRACTOR NO. M.P. 07/AB -1706 VILL.
PALAYCHA THANA BELGADA TAHSIL BHITARWAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY NONE.)

      This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

T he petitioner has filed this petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondent for breach of interim order dated 02.01.2012 passed in F.A.No. 360/11.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the breach of said order amounts to contempt and, therefore, this petition be entertained. In support of this contention, he relied on 1987 (1) MPWN 316 (Alnoor Vs. Ramgopal).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A coordinate Bench of this Court has passed order in MCC No.748/2007

(Smt. Saroj Devi and Ors. Vs. Laxmandas Agrawal and Ors). This judgment was followed in the case reported in 2012 (2) MPHT 328 (Sadhana Tripathi Vs. Banarasidevi). In the said judgment, it was held as under:-

"Âœ7. Moreover, the only decision viz., Shashank Vs. Naraindas, AIR 1973 MP 303, distinguished in Allanoor's case (Supra), also relates to interpretation of the words ÂœCourt granting an injunctionÂ. Explaining the effect of Con.C.368/10. Sections 36, 37 and 150 of the CPC in Shashank's case (Supra), the then Chief Justice, even without making reference to the view taken in Balu's case (supra), virtually reaffirmed the same after considering the judgments of the various High Courts on the question as to

whether the Court to which the suit is transferred is competent to entertain an application under Order 39 Rule 2(3). It was observed :-

ÂœWords "ÂœCourt granting an injunction can only be understood to mean the Court which is trying the suit in which the injunction is granted and which has the jurisdiction to grant an injunction"Â​.

(Emphasis supplied) I n the said judgment, coordinate Bench of this Court has taken into account the earlier judgments on the point including that of Alnoor which is relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, I am bound by the judgment of Sadhana Tripathi (supra). Even otherwise, under Order 39 Rule 2(A), petitioner has a remedy and this contempt petition is not maintainable.

Resultantly, this petition is not maintainable. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court.

Petition is disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.02.02 18:06:03 +05'30'