Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Gupta vs Ganga Prasad Kuraraiya (Dead) Through ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25940
1 MP-284-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 284 of 2025
RAKESH GUPTA
Versus
GANGA PRASAD KURARAIYA (DEAD) THROUGH SATISH
KURARIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mrs. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate with Shri Mallikarjun Khare -
Advocate for the petitioner .
Shri Manoj Kumar Sanghi - Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging order dated 9.1.2025 contained in
Annexure P/1. By the said order, an application which was filed by petitioner
under Section 151 of CPC for deleting his name from main case was
dismissed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that temporary inunction order was passed on 21.9.2012. Petitioner was not a
party in case when temporary injunction was passed. As per the injunction
order, Siya Bai and her agents or representatives may not create third party
interest over the property in question. Property was sold by one Veerendra
Singh Patel to petitioner on basis of Power of Attorney granted to him by
Siya Bai. Petitioner is not bound by the said injunction order. Trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25940
2 MP-284-2025
committed an error in dismissing the application.
3. Counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in case of Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. EIH
Limited in Civil Appeal Nos. 11886-11887 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No. 23410-23411 of 2011 dated 7.12.2026. On the strength of said
judgment, it is argued by counsel for the respondents that interim order of
injunction issued by Court of law is also binding on party as well as on third
party dealing with the subject matter of such order and if action taken (sale
etc.) in disobedience or disregarding such injunction order becomes void and
illegal. Said finding is given by Apex Court in dealing with an application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC. It is submitted that
petitioner was in knowledge of order, therefore, he is also liable for
disobedience of interim injunction order. Petitioner also participated in
action of creating third party interest. In view of same, no error has been
committed by the trial Court. Further, whether petitioner has knowledge
about the order or not can only be seen when evidence is adduced in the case
and it will be premature to allow application under Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure for deleting name of petitioner from case.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. On going through the facts of the case, it is found that petitioner
was not a party when injunction order was passed. On 21.9.2012, injunction
order was passed against Siya Bai and its representatives or employees,
agents, therefore, Veerendra Singh Patel who is Power of Attorney holder for
Siya Bai, who sold the land will be covered by injunction order and he will
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25940
3 MP-284-2025
be liable for breach of injunction. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is
not liable for action of breach of injunction. During the course of argument,
it has been stated by counsel for the respondents that there was collusion
between Veerendra Patel and petitioner, therefore, they may be taken to task
for the action as they were hand in glove with the seller and in full
knowledge of order.
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
it is found that petitioner cannot be held liable for breach of injunction order
under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the CPC, however, sale deed which has executed
by Power of Attorney holder in breach of injunction order shall be null and
void in respect of property which is subject to temporary injunction order.
Supreme Court has held in case of Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. EIH Limited
(supra) that injunction order is also binding on third party. Veerendra Patel
was bound by injunction order, therefore, no sale deed could have been
executed by Veerendra Patel as Power of Attorney holder contrary to order
of temporary injunction order passed by Civil Court.
7. With the aforesaid findings, miscellaneous petition is allowed to
the extent that name of petitioner be deleted from the main case of breach of
injunction.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
AD/
