[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarvoday Farms Pvt. Ltd. Through ... vs Anand Sagar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ... on 11 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4395
1 MA-6192-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
MISC. APPEAL No. 6192 of 2025
SARVODAY FARMS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DUSHYANT RATHORE
Versus
ANAND SAGAR REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR
VARJINDAR SINGH CHABRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Anant Athawale, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Munshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Lucky
Jain, learned counsel for respondent No,.1 on CAVEAT.
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned Government Advocate for the respondent /
State.
RESERVED ON : 08.12.2025
DELIVERED ON : 11.02.2026
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Order XLIII
Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the order
dated 11.07.2025 passed by the VIth District Judge in RCSA No.836/2021,
whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 / plaintiff has been
allowed.
02. Facts of the case reveal that respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a
civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, specific performance
of contract and for declaring the sale deed dated 30.06.2021 as null and void
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4395
2 MA-6192-2025
stating the respondent No.2 / original defendant No.1 executed an agreement
to sale dated 13.06.2014 in respect of land bearing Survey No.2716/6
situated at Village - Datoda in total sale consideration of Rs.6,00,00,000/- in
his favour and had taken sale consideration of Rs.62,00,000/-. It was agreed
that the plaintiff will get paper advertisement published ind then within 30
from its publication will pay Rs.20,00,000/- and thereafter, within three
months 25% of the sale consideration will be paid and rest of the amount will
be paid within 18 months. However, the said amount was not paid because
defendant No.1 did not comply on his part i.e. getting the land demarcated,
sub-divided and to give the documents of property to the plaintiff. It is
further stated in the plaint that defendant No.1 sold the suit property to
present appellant / defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 30.06.2021, which
gave cause of action to the plaintiff to institute a civil suit.
03. The appellant / defendant No.2 filed a written statements
denying the averment made in the plaint. It has been stated that he is
bonafide purchaser and had confirmed the title of the seller i.e. defendant
No.1 from the revenue records. On such premises, he prayed for dismissal of
the suit.
04. Defendant No.1 also filed a written statement. In the written
statement, he admitted the execution of agreement dated 13.06.2014,
however, it has been stated that since the plaintiff did not pay the sale
consideration within the time frame, he had cancelled the agreement vide
notice dated 08.02.2020 and the was also published in newspaper on
07.03.2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4395
3 MA-6192-2025
05. Along with the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rules
1 & 2 was also filed, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated
29.09.2022, against which the plaintiff filed M.A. No.4717 of 2022 before
this Court. Vide order dated 12.12.2022, this Court observed thus:-
''On due consideration of the submission and on perusal of the
documents on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the case at this stage. However, considering the fact that the
appellant has also paid a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- till date to the
respondent No.1, it is also directed that since the matter is pending
before the civil court, before any alienation of the property in
question by the respondent No.1 / defendant No.2, its prior
permission shall be obtained from the trial court as is provided
under Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. The learned
Judge of the trial court is also requested to expedite the matter and
conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without giving any
undue adjournment to the parties concerned.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.''
06. After the aforesaid order, the plaintiff offered compromise with
defendants No.1 & 2 to the effect that defendant No.2 would construct a road
and give a plot to plaintiff admeasuring 31000 sq.ft. and defendant No.2
would pay back the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- which was paid by plaintiff to
defendant No.1 vide demand draft dated 06.10.2023.
07. In paragraph - 7 of the appeal, it has been stated that appellant
herein i.e. defendant No.2 had paid Rs.60,00,000/- as agreed in the
compromise vide demand draft No.527981 dated 06.10.2023 and the plaintiff
has accepted the same, despite that the plaintiff has not persuaded the
compromise before the trial Court and the suit is still pending. However, in
paragraph - 7 of the written statement, it has been pleaded that an amount of
Rs.62,00,000/- as mentioned in paragraph - 4 (स) of the plaint has not been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4395
4 MA-6192-2025
received by defendant No.1. As per content of this paragraphs, Rs.2,00,000/-
on 15.12.2013 and Rs.5,00,000/ on 12.12.2014 has not been received by
defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1 has accepted that other cheques
mentioned in the said paragraph has been received by him.
08. On 13.05.2025, the plaintiff again filed an application for
temporary injunction stating that after the order passed by this Court,
defendant No.2 has obtained development permission from Town & Country
Planning and is developing a colony named as Sarvodaya Hills and map in
this regard has also been sanctioned.
09. The appellant / defendant No.2 filed a reply to the application for
temporary injunction stating that no alienation has been done and the trial
Court has no jurisdiction to decide the application for temporary injunction
again.
10. Vide order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-P/8), the trial Court has
allowed the application of the plaintiff and restrained appellant / defendant
No.2 to perform even development work. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal is
before this Court.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court is
not having jurisdiction to decide the application for temporary injunction on
merits again. It is submitted that vide order dated 12.12.2022, this Court
directed for only restriction on alienation of suit property by defendant No.2
and no other restriction was levied. It is further submitted that the trial Court
has misinterpreted the order passed by this Court on 12.12.2022. The
plaintiff has received an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- from the appellant /
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4395
5 MA-6192-2025
defendant No.2 in terms of the compromise, however, the same was not
persuaded by him before the trial Court and even development work on the
suit land has been stopped which is causing great hardship to the appellant.
On such premises, a prayer has been made that the impugned order be set
aside.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 / plaintiff
submits that development of disputed during pendency of civil suit amount
to alienating the status quo. Allowing construction or development on the
disputed property changes the subject matter irreversibly. It has been stated
that Supreme Court in catena of judgment has held that even a temporary
permission to raise construction during pendency of suit would virtually
amount to decreeing the suit itself and the same should not be granted. It has
been contended if the development is allowed to be continued, irreversible
structures will come into existence; if the plaintiff succeeds, demolition or
reimbursement claims will cause multiplicity of litigation and a prayer has
been made that the present miscellaneous appeal be dismissed. To prop up
the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon a judgment
delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewji Trust (Regd.),
Faridkot v/s Baldev Dass reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488 in which the Apex
Court has held as under:-
''9. While it is true that the lower appellate court did go into the
question of prima facie case and held that the appellant had not
made out any such case, the High Court did not go into that
question at all.
10. Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that
unless and untill a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out
by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4395
6 MA-6192-2025
property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer
of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to
the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to
multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such case of
irreparable loss is made out except contending that the legal
proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the
respondent should be permitted to put the scheduled property to
better use. We do not think in the facts and circumstances of this
case, the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified
in permitting the respondent to change the nature of property by
putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of the
property, whatever may be the condition on which the same is
done. In the event of the appellant's claim being found baseless
ultimately, it is always open to the respondent to claim damages
or, in an appropriate case, the court may itself award damages for
the loss suffered, if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case
do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the
respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think
both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the
High Court erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders
are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored.''
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone
through the order passed by the trial Court.
14. Admittedly, this is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the
plaintiff approached this Court by way of Miscellaneous Appeal No.4717 of
2022, which was disposed of by directing that since the matter is pending
before the trial Court, respondent No.1 / defendant No.2 (appellant herein)
shall not alienate the property in question without leave of the trial Court as
provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. Further the
Judge of the trial Court was also requested to expedite the matter without
giving undue adjournment to the parties concerned.
15. After poring over the order passed by the trial Court, I am of the
considered view that the trial Court has acted in the manner and method
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4395
7 MA-6192-2025
prescribed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Hence, the
impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court as the same
is justifiable.
16. In view of the above, Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Ravi
