Mukesh Sharma vs Pratap Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1752 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. 853 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
MUKESH SHARMA S/O SHRI SHYAMSWAROOP
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, SUBHASH NAGAR
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI U.K.BOHARE - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    PRATAP SINGH S/O SHRI RAM SINGH SISODIYA,
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MAHAVEER GANJ BHIND
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SHAKTI SINGH S/O LATE RAMSINGH SISODIYA,
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MAHAVIR GANJ,
      BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    MANNU @ DHIRENDRA SINGH S/O LATE
      RAMSINGH SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
      R/O MAHAVIR GANJ, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

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

The 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 04.07.2013 passed in F.A.No. 09/13.

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 no.2 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:- “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€ÂÂ. 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 :-

“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€ÂÂ​.

(Emphasis supplied)

In 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).

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 2023.01.31 18:30:01 +05'30'