Vijay Kumar Sharma vs Brijesh Kumar Sharma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1897 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. 2524 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA S/O LT BHAIYARAM SHARMA,
                           AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 12 BANGLA BAZAR BHIND
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI K.S. TOMAR SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI J.S. KAURAV
                           ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    BRIJESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O ASHOK KUMAR
                                 SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 12 BANGLA
                                 BAZAR, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    AKHILESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI ASHOK
                                 KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                                 BANGLA BAZAR, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI
                                 BHAIYARAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
                                 BANGLA BAZAR, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    GIRRAJ PACHAURI S/O RAMJILAL PACHAURI,
                                 AGED   ABOUT   41   YEARS, VILL. KANERA
                                 (PACHAURI KA PURA) TEH. ATER, PRESENTLY
                                 AGARWAL COLONY, ATER ROAD, BHIND
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    UMASHANKAR     PACHAURI   S/O   RAMASRE
                                 PACHAURI VILL. KANERA (PACHAURI KA PURA)
                                 TEH. ATER, PRESENTLY AGARWAL COLONY,
                                 ATER ROAD, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    SUB   REGISTRAR   SHRI   S.P. VERMA SUB
                                 REGISTRAR OFFICE BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           7.    COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Signature Not Verified
                                 BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 2/3/2023
9:47:15 AM
                                                              2

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3. BY SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH BHADORIYA-
                           ADVOCATE )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE MILIND
                           RAMESH PHADKE 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 respondents for breach of interim order dated 09.10.2013 passed in F.A.No. 196/2013.

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).

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that under Order 39 Rule 2(A), petitioner has a remedy and this contempt petition is not maintainable.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties 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:-

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 Court granting an injunctionÂÂ. Explaining the effect of Con.C.368/10. Sections 36, 37 and 150 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 2/3/2023 9:47:15 AM

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 :-

Court 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 (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 Allanoor's case (supra) which is relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, I am bound by the judgment of Sadhana Tripathi (supra).

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 ar

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 2/3/2023 9:47:15 AM