Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Prasad vs Sukhsen on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58318
1 MCC-1628-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1628 of 2016
RAJENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
SUKHSEN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1
Ms. Sana Khan - Advocate for the respondent No.2
ORDER
This is an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A read with Section 151
of CPC praying for an order for removal of construction raised by non-
applicant/respondent in breach of status-quo order passed by this Court on
08.12.2015 in F.A. No.1086/2015 and also to punish the non-
applicant/respondent with civil imprisonment.
2. That the Applicant had filed the First Appeal under Sec 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code which was registered as F.A. No 1086 /2015 against
the judgment & decree passed by Additional District Judge Dewsar
Distt. Singrauli in Civil Suit No.03-A/2014. The applicant /plaintiff has filed
the suit for declaration of title & for permanent injunction against the
respondents/defendants before trial court and trial court after adducing the
evidence led by both the parties dismissed suit as title & possession of
Applicant/plaintiff not proved vide its
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58318
2 MCC-1628-2016
judgment & decree dt 07.10.2015 against which the applicant/ plaintiff filed
the first appeal before court and same was registered as F.A. No.1086/2015
and this Court vide its order 08.12.212 passed interim order and directed that
both the parties shall maintain staus quo in respect of the suit land involved
in the case which is still in operation .
3. That the applicant/plaintiff has got the information that the
respondent is going to start the construction over the lands in dispute he
immediately made the report to the police station officer chouki Niwas
enclosing the stay order passed by the Court in F.A. No.1086/ 2015 on 16-
12-2015, then on 22-01-16 to town inspector Niwas as well as Tahsildar
Niwas vide order dt 25-1-2016 has passed the direction to officer incharge
Thana Niwas for complying the order of stay passed by Hon,ble High court
and same has been received by police station Niwas on 25-1-2016 but no
steps were taken in respect of the same and the respondents /defendant one
sided appeared in the first appeal as well as also getting the knowledge of
interim order passed by this court started the construction on the disputed
lands then again the applicant/plaintiff went to police station Niwas made the
complaint of the same and prayed that construction work of
respondent/defendants be stopped in compliance of stay order passed by
Court but nothing has been done.
4. It is submitted in the reply filed by respondent No.1 that, the
applicant/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent
injunction in respect of suit land, with further prayer for directing the
answering respondent to prohibit/restrain to raise any construction on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58318
3 MCC-1628-2016
suit land. The trial court on 07.10.2015 has rejected/declined to grant relief
as claimed by applicant/plaintiff. The trial court has given
specific finding/observation that the applicant /plaintiff is not entitle for
any relief on the land and respondent is in continuous possession since
32 years. It was further observed that plaintiff has not approached the court
within limitation in view of this, he is not entitled for any relief claimed
against answering respondent. The applicant/plaintiff and his witnesses have
specifically admitted that answering respondent is in possession of the
disputed property. That, applicant has filed the First Appeal No. 1083/2015
calling in question the judgment and decree passed by the court below. It
is submitted that matter came up for hearing on 08.12.15 and the appeal was
admitted for final hearing. It is also submitted that applicant has filed an I.A.
15850/2015 under order 39 rule 1 and 2, this Court on this has ordered for
maintaining status-quo as was existing on 08.12.2015.
5. The answering respondent is in continuous possession of the suit
land, and under the garb of interim order passed by this Court, applicant is
trying to dispossess the answering respondent. It is with great respect
submitted that answering respondent has not done any construction work the
status quo as was existing on the said date is still in existence. It is also
submitted that the respondent has completed 80% of the construction work
during the pending of suit and infact due to interim order passed by this
Court he could not complete the work which is still pending though he is
facing great difficulty due to this.
6. Applicants have filed stay order dated 06.12.2024 passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58318
4 MCC-1628-2016
Naib Tahsildar, Vrit Niwas, Tehsil Sarai, District- Singrauli, Madhya
Pradesh. While going through the documents it becomes crystal clear that
land bearing Khasra No.226 area 0.01 hectare has been constructed and
possessed by the respondents/non-applicants therein, whereas in the present
suit No.03-A/2014, the land of Khasra No.235 area 0.72 acre, Khasra
No.248 area 11.66 decimal, having new number of Khasra No.225 area 0.17
hectare of Gram Paapal is in dispute, thereby mean that Khasra no.226 area
0.10 hectare was not in dispute. Hence any encroachment or construction
done in the Khasra No.226 is not in violation of order dated 08.12.2015
passed in F.A. No.1086/2015. It is also to be noted that the non-applicants
have filed certain documents and while going through these documents, it is
seen that the Tahsildar, Tehsil - Sarai and patwari have furnished their report
and going through the report, it is found that non-applicants have not done
any construction on Khasra No.224/1/10.
7. Hence, while analyzing the above facts, it is not found proved that
the non-applicants have violated the order dated 08.12.2015 passed in F.A.
No.1086/2015. Hence, no proceeding can be drawn against them in violation
of Order 39 Rule 2 A of CPC. Therefore, this petition is liable to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
RC
