Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal vs Hiralal on 15 March, 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 15 th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 1276 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. BABULAL S/O LATE SHRI HIRALAL, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE PACH PIPALIYA P.S MANDI TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAILASH S/O LATE SHRI HIRALAL, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE PACH PIPALIYA P.S. MANDI TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI B.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. HIRALAL S/O LATE SHRI M ANGILAL D IED R/O
VILLAGE PANCHPIPALIYA P . S MANDI TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SEHORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RESHAMBAI W/O SHRI RADHESHYAM KHATI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PANCHPIPALIYA P.S. MANDI TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SEHORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RESHAMBAI W/O SHRI RADHESHYAM KHATI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PANCHPIPALIYA P.S. MANDI TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SEHORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DHARAM SINGH S/O RADHESHYAM KHATTI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PANCHPIPALIYA P.S. MANDI TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SEHORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. HEMLATA D/O DHARAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PANCHPIPALIYA P.S. MANDI
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEHORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 3/17/2023
7:26:58 PM
2
6. SURESH S/O BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
AT PRESENT VILLAGE KULASKHURD TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
SEHORE DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. RAMESH S/O RADHESHYAM, AGED ABOUT 38
YEAR S , R/O VILLAGE PANCHPIPALIYA TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. RAJU BAI D/O LATE HIRALAL W/O KAILASH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHAKLDI
TEHSIL RETHI DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. SMT. DHANKUARBAI W/O LATE HIRALAL W/O
RADHSHYAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE GUDHBHELA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHIKHA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed this petition assailing the order dated
03.01.2023 passed by Principal District Judge Sehore, District-Sehore in MCA
No.40/2022 contained in Annexure P/10
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the present
petitioners have filed a suit before the trial Court seeking declaration and
cancellation of registered sale-deed and also partition of the property in
question. Counsel further contends that the suit of plaintiffs/petitioners was
dismissed and counter claim of the defendants/respondents was partly allowed.
Assailing the said judgment and decree dated 13.08.2013 contained in Annexure
P/3, the present petitioners preferred a First Appeal vide Regular Civil Appeal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 3/17/2023
7:26:58 PM
No.25(A)/2018 and vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 contained in
Annexure P/4, the Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Sehore set-aside the
judgment delivered by the trial Court dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure P/3) and
remitted back the matter to decide the case on certain issues which were framed
by the lower Appellate Court itself. Then after the remand order when the
proceedings of civil suit were initiated, the present petitioners/plaintiffs filed an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C which was partly allowed by
the trial Court. The trial Court while restraining the parties from creating third
party rights, further restrained the petitioners/plaintiffs from interfering with the
properties described detailed in Scheduled-A & B filed along with the plaint.
Assailing the order passed by the trial Court, the present petitioners preferred an
appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C. and the appeal preferred by the
plaintiffs/petitioners has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2023
passed in MCA No.40/2022 contained in Annexure P/10.
3. Counsel for the petitioners further contends that in the present
case the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the matter was remitted back
by the Appellate Court earlier while setting aside the decree initially and
therefore, the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. ought to
have been allowed while restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering
with the possession of the plaintiffs/petitioners over the property in question.
Counsel also contends that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that
there existed a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and accordingly,
the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of
C.P.C. should have been allowed.
4. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and
perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 3/17/2023
7:26:58 PM
5. In the present case, the trial Court vide order dated 18.02.2022
contained in Annexure P/9 has partly allowed the application filed by the present
petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. and has observed
that the defendants/respondents shall not alienate the property in question till
final decision of the civil suit. The trial Court has further restrained the
plaintiffs/petitioners from interfering with the properties described in Scheduled-
A & B appended to the plaint. The trial Court came to a conclusion that the
defendants/respondents were in possession of the property in question and
accordingly, concluded that if the defendants/respondents are dispossessed
from the property in question, the same would result in irreparable injury as well
as inconvenience to the defendants/respondents. The Appellate Court has also
declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
6. The trial Court has also restrained the defendants/respondents from
alienating the property in question till final disposal of the civil suit, therefore, in
the considered view of this Court, the orders passed by the trial Court as well
as Appellate Court are just and proper inasmuch as, all three ingredients of grant
of temporary injunctions have been duly considered by the trial Court and
thereafter the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners has been partly
allowed.
7 . Thus, in absence of any perversity or infirmity in the impugned
orders passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, this Court is of the
opinion that no interference is warranted in the present petition and accordingly,
the present petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 3/17/2023
7:26:58 PM
JUDGE
sp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 3/17/2023
7:26:58 PM
