Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Patel vs Anant Verma on 8 February, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 261 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
KRISHNA KUMAR PATEL S/O BANWAREELAL PATEL
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. PATHROTA TEH.
ITARSI DIST. HOSHANGABAD MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY MS. SUDIPTA CHOUDBEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. ANANT VERMA S/O GAREEBDAS VERMA
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST WARD NO. 1
NEAR TAWA COLONY PURANI ITARSI DIST.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMKRISHNA S/O BANWAREELAL OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE PITHROTA, TEH.
ITARSI, DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. RITU BHARGAV, NAIB TAHSILDAR KESIA
TEH. ITARSI, DISTT. HOSHANGABA, PRESENTLY
NAIB TEHSILDAR HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 AND
SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3 )
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. alleging
violation of interlocutory order dated 13.08.2020 passed in F.A.No.544/2020 by
this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/10/2023
3:03:01 PM
2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that a judgment and
decree delivered by the trial Court is assailed by filing a appeal i.e.
F.A.No.544/2020 by respondents. The said appeal, came up for hearing before
this Court on 13.08.2020. This Court was issued notices to the respondents and
directed the parties to maintain status quo as interim measure. It is further
contended by the counsel that after passing of the order dated 13.08.2020, the
respondents were obliged to maintain the status quo but they started cultivating
the land which is evident from perusal of Annexure A/2. It is contended by the
counsel that Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) was also prepared on 23.11.2020
which reflect that the Revenue Authority concluded that the respondent No.1-
Anant Verma has in possession of the property in question and also has
cultivated the land.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits
that the respondents are in possession of the property in question which is
evident from perusal of paragraph 63 of the judgment delivered by the trial
Court. In view of the order of status quo, the respondents being in possession
of the property in question, have cultivated the said land. It is contended by the
counsel that there is no direction by this Court to not to cultivate the land and
on the contrary, innocuous order was passed by which the parties were directed
to maintain the status quo.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State Shri Naveen Dubey
submits that the respondent No.3 is Naib Tehsildar who was originally
impleaded in the present application has already been transferred from District-
Hoshangabad to District-Damoh. The Naib Tehsildar has already been relieved
on 11.12.2020, thereafter the subsequent incumbent holding the post of Naib
Tehsildar has filed reply and in terms of the averments made in paragraph 4 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/10/2023
3:03:01 PM
the reply, the respondent No.3 has acted in accordance with law.
5. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
6. This Court vide interlocutory order dated 13.08.2020 in
F.A.No.544/2020 issued notices to the respondents on an application filed
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. This Court further observed that till
pendency of I.A.No.5245/2020, the parties shall maintain status quo. The
applicant does not dispute that respondent No.1 and 2 are in possession of the
property. The only grievance of the applicant is to the effect that as there was
an order of status quo, the respondent No.1 and 2 could not have cultivated the
land and therefore, they are guilty for violation of the interlocutory order dated
13.08.2020.
7. This Court, vide interlocutory order dated 13.08.2020 did not restrain
the respondents herein from cultivating the land and only the order of status quo
was passed. If it is the contention of the applicant that the respondents could
not have even cultivated the land, the applicant was at liberty to move an
application seeking clarification of the order dated 13.08.2020 passed in
F.A.No.544/2020. The applicant was also at liberty to move an appropriate
application regarding appointment of the Receiver, if in the opinion of the
present applicant, there was misappropriation of the mesne profit.
8. In view of the aforesaid, as the considered view of this Court no case
to invoke the jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. has been made
out. The applicant is at liberty to move appropriate applications in terms of this
order in First Appeal No.544/2020.
9. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/10/2023
3:03:01 PM
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/10/2023
3:03:01 PM
