Gopal Chanda Chhajed vs Smt. Saroj Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 1729 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                   ON THE 31 st OF JANUARY, 2023
             CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 404 of 2017

BETWEEN:-
GOPAL CHANDA CHHAJED S/O LATE SHRI LAKHMI
CHANDRA CHHAJED, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS CHHAJED BHAWAN DAHI
MANDI DAULATGANJ LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SIDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    SMT. SAROJ DEVI W/O SHRI NIHAL CHANDRA @
      NARESH JAIN ABHINANDAN MARKET JALIM
      SINGH GOTH DAHI MANDI LASHKAR GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SMT REKHA DEVI W/O DHANESH KUMAR
      ABHINANDAD MARKET JALIM SINGH GOTH
      DAHI MANDI LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    SMT PRABHA DEVI W/O ABHINANDAN JAIN
      ABHINANDAD MARKET JALIM SINGH GOTH
      DAHI MANDI LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANAND BHARDWAJ - ADVOCATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for non compliance of the order dated 13.07.2005

passed in F.A. No.235/2004.

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer submitting that under Order 39 Rule 2(A), petitioner has a remedy and this petition is not maintainable.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. This Court has recently passed order in MCC No. 748/2007 (Smt.

Saroj Devi and Ors. Vs. LaxmandasAgrawal and Ors). This Court followed the judgment of the High Court reported in 2012 (2) MPHT 328 (Sadhana Tripathi Vs. Banarasidevi). In the said judgment, it was held as under:-

“7. 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 injunctionâ€. Explaining the effect of Con.C.368/10 2 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 :-

“Words “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 injunctionâ€​.

(Emphasis supplied)

6. In the said judgment, this Court has taken into account the earlier judgments on the point including that of Alnoor which is relied on by Shri Sidhharth Sharma, Advocate. Thus, this Court is bound by the judgment of Sadhana Tripathi (supra).

7. Resultantly, this petition is not maintainable.

8. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court. Petition is disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2023.02.01 11:57:06 +05'30'