Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Kumar Jain vs Om Prakash on 22 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18982
1 MP-4258-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4258 of 2025
AJIT KUMAR JAIN
Versus
OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Singhal - learned Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Nirmal Sharma- learned Government Advocate for respondent
No.9/ State.
Shri Kamal Mangal- learned Counsel for caveator.
ORDER
This misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by petitioner assailing the order dated 06-05-2025 passed by the
Court of Tenth Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gwalior in MJC No. 07 of 2015,
whereby the application filed by petitioner under Section 151 of CPC has
been rejected.
It is the contention of petitioner that respondents No. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs
therein) had filed a suit for declaration of tittle and permanent injunction
against respondents No.4 to 9 (defendants therein) in respect of agricultural
land in dispute area 0.571 hectare situated in Pargana and District
Gwalior despite the fact that petitioner is the registered owner of the disputed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18982
2 MP-4258-2025
property. The entire suit was filed by plaintiffs with connivance of
defendants therein without impleading present petitioner. Defendants who
were impleaded as party in the suit neither appeared nor had they filed any
written statement. Neither any opportunity was given to present petitioner
nor any information about filing of suit was given to the petitioner. The trial
Court passed an ex parte decree on 25-05-2024 in favour of the plaintiffs. In
pursuance of ex parte decree, the plaintiffs applied for cancellation of order
of mutation granted in favour of petitioner before the Tahsildar, against
which the petitioner had filed an appeal before SDO by which, the order of
mutation passed by Tahsildar dated 03-01-2025 was stayed. The plaintiffs
thereafter filed an application for vacating the stay. Further, contention of
petitioner is that against ex parte decree passed by the Trial Cour, petitioner
moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13of CPC on 27-12-2024, whereas
the Tahsildar cancelled the order of mutation on 03-01-2025. Petitioner had
moved an application under Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court for
status quo on the ground that the plaintiffs are bent on alienating disputed
property and trial Court rejected the application under Section 151 of CPC
on 06-05-2025. Petitioner has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in
the case of Rajkumar vs. Sardari Lal 2004 AIR SCW 470 in support of his
contentions.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents opposed the
contentions of petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
On perusal of impugned order as the documents available on record, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18982
3 MP-4258-2025
is appears that the trial Court plaintiffs applied for cancellation of mutation
order passed in favour of ex parte decree dated 25-05-2024 before the
Tahsildar whereby order of mutation was cancelled by Tahsildar on 03-01-
2025 against which, an appeal was filed by petitioner before the SDO, in
which the order of Tahsildar dated 03-01-2025 was stayed. Petitioner had
moved an application under Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court for
status quo on the ground that the plaintiffs are bent on alienating disputed
property. The trial Court dismissed the application under Section 151 of CPC
on 09-01-2025. Petitioner, thereafter preferred Misc. Petition No. 566 of
2025 before this Court in which an order of status quo was passed on 17th of
February, 2025 and such misc. petition was dismissed as withdrawn by
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30th of July, 2025 with
liberty to petitioner to file afresh within a period of seven days, however, the
trial Court rejected application of the petitioner on 06-05-2025.
Since the order of status quo has been passed by the coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 17-02-2025 and the same has been remained in
force vide order dated 30th of July, 2025 passed in Misc. Petition No.566 of
2025 and there is sufficient cause has been assigned by petitioner for setting
aside ex parte decree dated 25-05-2024 within meaning of Order 9 Rule 13
and for condoning the delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, therefore, the
application filed by petitioner under Section 151 of deserves to be allowed
and is hereby allowed. Parties are directed to maintain status quo till disposal
of application filed by petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along-with
conondation application for setting aside ex parte decree dated 25-05-2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18982
4 MP-4258-2025
passed by trial Court.
In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 06-05-2025 is set
aside. Instant mis. petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
