Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Purswani vs Smt. Sandhya Singh on 7 March, 2025
1 CONC-1162-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2025
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1162 of 2025
YOGESH PURSWANI
Versus
SMT. SANDHYA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Petitioner has filed the subject contempt petition seeking initiation of
contempt against the respondents for alleged breach of order dated
13.02.20214.
2. It is contended in the petition that by order dated 13.02.2014 there
was a direction by the Court to maintain status-quo and that order has been
violated by the contemnors/respondents by making shades and opening shops
over the subject property. It is further contended that the contemnors have
deliberately in order to mislead and misguide this Court intentionally and
willfully made a false statement in the First Appeal No.436/2011.
3. There is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.1 with
regard to the title of the subject property.
4. The petitioner filed a suit against Rohit Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti
2 CONC-1162-2025
Maryadit as also the respondent no.1 Sandhya Singh seeking specific
performance of an alleged agreement to sell between Rohit Grih Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Maryadit and the petitioner. It was contended in the suit that
after the agreement to sell was executed, a sale-deed was executed by the
said Samiti in favour of Shri Sandhya Singh. Said suit was decreed and Shri
Sandhya Singh filed the subject appeal being First Appeal No.436/2011. In
First Appeal No.436/2011, an application was filed by Smt. Sandhya Singh
that petitioner herein was threatening to interfere in her
possession. Consequently, on 13.02.2014 (subject order) the following
directions were issued:-
"In the meanwhile, considering the fact that in the
execution proceedings that were held before the trial
court, it is indicated vide order-sheet dated 14.8.2012,
certified copy of which is produced by Shri Anil Lala,
that the sale-deed in pursuance to the impugned order
has been executed in favour of the appellant Smt.
Sandhya Singh, the possession and status-quo with
regard to the property available with Smt. Sandhya
Singh shall be protected during the pendency of the
appeal."
5 . It is this order the petitioner contends has been breached by the
respondents and accordingly a contempt petition has been filed. Further, it is
contended that in the First Appeal a false statement has been made on behalf
of Smt. Sandhya Singh that sale-deed has been executed in her favour.
6 . It is an admitted position that subject order dated 13.02.2014 was
passed on an application filed by Smt. Sandhya Singh (respondent no.1
herein) alleging interference in her rights by the petitioner herein. There was
3 CONC-1162-2025
no application or an order in favour of the petitioner as against Smt. Sandhya
Singh.
7. Interim order dated 13.02.2014 directs protection of possession and
status-quo with regard to the property available with Smt.Sandhya Singh.
There is no interim order in favour of the petitioner, which the petitioner can
contend, has been breached. Even if it was assumed that the order of status-
quo were to operate on both parties, there is no allegation in the contempt
petition that Smt. Sandhya Singh has transferred possession or title of the
subject property. Accordingly, in our view no ground is made out to initiate
any contempt proceedings at the behest of the petitioner herein.
8. Further contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that Smt.
Sandhya Singh has made a false statement on 13.02.2014 and based on
which the subject status-quo order was passed. We note that the alleged false
statement was made on 13.02.2014 in the First Appeal and as per the
petitioner he had filed a review petition in the year 2020 (Review Petition
No.312/2020), which was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2022 with
liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the First Appeal.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an application has been
filed in the said appeal and the Court has directed that the application shall
be taken up at the time of final disposal of the appeal.
1 0 . Be that as it may, making of an alleged false statement in
February, 2014 does not give right to the petitioner to seek initiation of
contempt proceedings in an independent proceedings, when the appeal is still
pending. The remedy, if any, of the petitioner was to approach the concerned
4 CONC-1162-2025
Court for an appropriate direction. As per the petitioner, he has already
availed of said opportunity. Firstly, by filing a review petition, which has
been withdrawn with liberty to file an application and secondly by filing an
application in the First Appeal. However, the Court, as per the learned
counsel for petitioner, has deferred consideration of the application to the
stage of final hearing in the appeal.
11 . Be that as it may, that would also not give a ground to the
petitioner to seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents
for alleged breach of a status-quo order, which as noticed above, is not in
favour of the petitioner but passed on an application filed by the respondent
no.1 herself and secondly for an alleged incorrect statement made in the year
2014 in the First Appeal.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Afzal and another Vs. State of Haryana and
others reported in 1996(7) SC 397 to contend that making a false statement
in judicial proceedings amounts to criminal contempt.
13. As noticed hereinabove, there is no false statement made in these
proceedings before us. The allegation is that an alleged false statement was
made on 13.02.2014 in the First Appeal No.436/2011. Petitioner has already
availed of the remedy of filing a review petition and an application in the
First Appeal. Consequently, said judgment is not applicable to the facts of
the present case and does not further the case of the Petitioner.
14. We are of the view that the subject contempt petition has been
filed simply to harass the respondents. We find no merit in the petition or
5 CONC-1162-2025
any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.
15. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to the Madhya Pradesh
High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
TG /-
