Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Mangal vs Mahesh Prasad Sharma on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CONA-30-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CONA No. 30 of 2025
(PRADEEP MANGAL AND OTHERS Vs MAHESH PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 13-08-2025
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for respondents
No.5&6/State.
The instant appeal is preferred under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 arising out of the order dated 06-08-2025 passed by
learned Single Judge in MCC No.780/2023 whereby the appellants have
been held guilty of contempt of Court order passed by the Court.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that
respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction on the basis
of alleged Will but suffered. In First Appeal, he met with the same fate.
When Second Appeal No.307/2021 was filed then the same was admitted
vide order dated 12-08-2021 on Substantial Questions of Law as
incorporated into it. Along with the order of admission, status-quo order is
also passed considering the fact that the applicant (respondent No.1 herein)
was in possession of the property in question. That status-quo order has been
disturbed by the present appellants when they purchased the property.
Therefore, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC read with
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience of the
order of the Court, was filed.
2 CONA-30-2025
Vide order dated 06-08-2025 learned Single Judge found the
appellants guilty for committing Contempt of Court as well as breach of
temporary injunction order. They are to be heard on punishment on 14-08-
2025, therefore, appellants are before this Court.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that they are
purchasers of the suit property. Therefore, they are facing the heat of breach
of temporary injunction. According to them, they were never intimated about
framing of Substantial Questions of Law and passing of injunction order
when they purchased the property. Substantial Question of Law is framed in
a manner contrary to Section 100 of CPC. It reflects the ground mentioned in
appeal memo.
Counsel for the appellants raised a point regarding maintainability of
appeal while submitting that respondent No.1 himself moved an application
under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Court below also
found the present appellants guilty of breach of injunction order and held
guilty for committing Contempt of Court. Therefore, it is a composite order
for committing Contempt of Court as well as breach of injunction. Therefore,
the present contempt appeal is maintainable. It is also submitted that against
the order of holding guilty, Contempt Appeal can be filed. Counsel for the
appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manjula
Choudhary Vs. Priyanka Chauhan, 2015 (4) MPLJ 704. Appellants also
tendered unconditional apology if any breach of injunction is committed and
they are ready to advance arguments finally in Second Appeal so as to clear
the mist and bring clarity to the issues.
3 CONA-30-2025
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the prayer.
According to him, it is a case of breach of injunction, therefore, Contempt
Appeal is not maintainable. Recital of application may contain contents of
Contempt of Courts Act but Court shall act on an issue arises out of breach
of injunction.
Counsel for the respondent/State submits that appropriate remedy for
the parties would be to get the Second Appeal decided at the earliest.
However, he supported the impugned order.
After hearing rival submissions, the issues arise for consideration are:
i. Whether in the given set of facts, application for breach of injunction
itself containing contents of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
besides breach of injunction, impugned order also refers commission of
Contempt of Court by non-compliance of the order, then whether this
Contempt Appeal is maintainable or not?
Respondent No.1 shall also have to counter the submission regarding
maintainability of appeal when appellants are held guilty.
ii. Another question arising for consideration is whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case any order for breach of injunction can be
passed or matter can be directed to be decided at an early date finally.
Parties sought time to address on these questions at an early date.
As prayed, list in the next week.
Till next date of hearing, effect and operation of the impugned order
dated 06-08-2025 passed in MCC No.780/2023 shall remain stayed.
4 CONA-30-2025
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Anil*
