Madhya Pradesh High Court
Udesingh vs Mahi Mineral Pvt Ltd Through Nitin Tomar on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23591
1 MP-4519-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4519 of 2025
UDESINGH
Versus
MAHI MINERAL PVT LTD THROUGH NITIN TOMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 05.08.2025
passed by I District Judge, Depalpur, District Indore, in RCA No.22/2024
whereby the learned appellate Court, while reviewing its own order dated
17.12.2024, set aside the stay granted to the petitioner.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a
suit for the recovery of remaining amount of consideration in the sale deed
executed in respect of land survey no. 175/4 area 2.530 hectare's part area 0.506
hectare situated in the village Budhaniya, Tehsil. Hatod and for cancellation of
sale deed and for permanent injunction against the respondents and by the
judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Depalpur in RCSA/95/2017 the suit was partly decreed in Petitioner/Plaintiff's
favour i.e. the learned trial court held that plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to receive
the remaining sale consideration. However, the trial court rejected the relief for -
permanent injunction prayed by plaintiff/petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23591
2 MP-4519-2025
3. Being crestfallen plaintiff/petitioner preferred an appeal (bearing RCA
No. 22/24) before the District Judge, Depalpur, Dist. Indore. Along with the
appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC was also filed in with a prayer
that the respondents be restrained from mutating their name in the revenue record
till the disposal of appeal. The application was partly allowed and the respondents
were restrained from mutating their name in the revenue record till the disposal of
appeal. Thereafter on 05.08.2025, the stay granted to the petitioners got vacated
by the appellate Court on the ground that the petitioner is deliberately lingering
on the matter. Hence the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not
lingering the matter deliberately. The interim relief was granted on 17.12.2024
and thereafter the case got adjourned on 25.02.2025, 20.03.2025 and 18.06.2025
for want of record of the lower Court and the petitioner was not at fault for the
aforesaid adjournments. For the first time when the case was listed on
05.08.2025, the junior of the arguing counsel for the petitioner sought time on the
ground that his senior is not available. The prayer was orally objected by the
respondent no.1 on the ground that the petitioner is deliberately lingering on the
matter and the interim relief granted was vacated. The respondents have
themselves agreed before the Court that they will not get their name mutated in
the revenue record till the disposal of the appeal. However, the respondents have
resiled from their own statement and objected to the stay granted by the appellate
Court. The petitioner could not be punished for no fault on his part. Moreover,
the learned trial Court could not have reviewed its earlier order in a pending case
only on the basis of oral objection and in absence of an application for vacating
the stay. Therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and thus liable to
be set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23591
3 MP-4519-2025
5. On due consideration of the submissions advance by counsel for the
petitioner, I have perused the record.
6. It is evident from the record, the case was adjourned for three dates for
want of lower Court record and on 05.08.2025 for the first time adjournment was
sought by the petitioners in the absence of the arguing counsel. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner should not be punished for not fault on his
part therefore, in the interest of natural justice, it is directed that the impugned
order dated 05.08.2025, to the extent it relates to vacating of interim relief granted
to the petitioner on 17.12.2024, is hereby set aside. The interim relief granted on
17.12.2024 shall continue till the pendency of the trial. Consequently, the
respondents are restrained from mutating their name in the revenue record till the
disposal of the appeal.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the miscellaneous petition stands disposed
of.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
sumathi
