Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 17 (MP)

Rambabu v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2026-01-12

ALOK AWASTHI

body2026
ORDER : ALOK AWASTHI, J. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 2. This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.11.2025, th passed in M.C.A. No. 42 of 2024 by learned VI District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 13.09.2025 passed in th RCS No. 145 of 2025 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shujalpur, District Shajapur whereby the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been partly allowed, has been reversed and order for temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/petitioners has been set aside. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that, the petitioners are bhoomi swamis of the land admeasuring 100 X 100 sq.ft. forming part of Survey No. 1253, situated at Village Behrawal, Tehsil Kalapipal, District Shajapur (M.P.) which was allotted to their father by the State Government on 15.10.1983 under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Gramo Me Ki Pakhalrahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1970. Since allotment, the Petitioners have been in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession, regularly paying land revenue and other government dues. On 15.07.2025, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shajapur, addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shajapur, and the Tehsildar, Kalapipal, alleging illegal possession by the Petitioners over Survey No. 1253/2. Acting thereon, the Tehsildar, without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, issued a direction on 18.07.2025 requiring the Petitioners to vacate the land, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. RCS- A/145/2025 for permanent injunction on 26.07.2025, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94 CPC seeking interim protection against dispossession and interference. The application was allowed by the Trial Court on 13.09.2025. The respondents preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, registered as MCA No. 42/2025, which was partly allowed by order dated 28.11.2025. While the injunction was affirmed, the Appellate Court made an extraneous observation that the order would not affect construction over alleged Government land bearing Survey No. 1253/2, an issue neither pleaded, argued, nor forming part of the suit or appeal, thereby causing serious prejudice to the Petitioners. While the injunction was affirmed, the Appellate Court made an extraneous observation that the order would not affect construction over alleged Government land bearing Survey No. 1253/2, an issue neither pleaded, argued, nor forming part of the suit or appeal, thereby causing serious prejudice to the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said impugned observation contained in the order dated 28.11.2025, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is against the settled principle of law. The petitioner is in continuous possession of the suit last since 1983. The Appellate Court travelled beyond the pleadings relief and issues by referring to a Government Survey number that is not part of the suit, and was never raised by respondents in their appeal. The suit and injunction application pertained only to the Petitioners’ Survey Number, as recorded in the plaint and revenue records. The Trial Court passed a clear injunction over the suit property alone. The observation of the Appellate Court, unnecessarily casts doubt on the injunction's effect and alters the nature of the order without jurisdiction. There is no material on record to show that petitioners’ land overlaps with Government land. The Appellate Court, while affirming the injunction, added an observation which changes the character of the operative order. Appellate Court cannot modify or restrict relief beyond what is claimed or adjudicated, especially in the absence of any such challenge in the memorandum of appeal. Learned Appellate Court erred in partially reversing the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court, which had correctly appreciated the evidence and granted injunction to prevent irreparable injury. The impugned order has been passed illegally and arbitrarily, which is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the counsel for the petitioners. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is found that so far as the order dated 13.09.2025 is concerned, whereby the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was partly allowed. The learned Judge of the Trial Court has passed the following order :- 7. The learned Judge of the Trial Court has passed the following order :- 7. It is also found that against the aforesaid order, when the appeal was preferred by the It is also found that against the aforesaid order, when the appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs, the following findings were recorded by the District Appellate Court:- 8. Here, only one question is to be determined whether the Appellate Court has committed error in passing the impugned order or not ? 9. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Skyline Education Institute (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. S.L. Vaswani & Anr. reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3221 , the relevant portion of the case is referred as under :- "16. Once the Court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity." ".....unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to entertain the appellant's prayer for temporary injunction is vitiated by an error apparent or perversity and manifest injustice has been done to it, there will be no warrant for exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution ....." 10] Another judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court Wander Ltd. And Another Vs. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as mentioned below:- ".......the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion." 11. In the aforesaid judgment, it is clearly stated that once a trial court has exercised its discretion on a temporary injunction in a reasoned and judicial manner, an appellate court should not interfere merely because a different view is possible. Interference is justified only where the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, contrary to settled legal principles, or has resulted in manifest injustice. In the present case, learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.09.2025 has accepted the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and granted temporary injunction for the Survey No. 1253/1/2 area 0.0210 & 1253/1/2 area 0.0210 of the disputed property, whereas learned Appellate Court has reversed the findings of Trial Court partly by mentioning that the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in respect of the disputed land Survey No. 1253/1/1 measuring 0.0210 hectare and Survey No. 1253/1/2 measuring 0.0210 hectare is confirmed and the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in respect of the land of Government Survey No. 1253/2 measuring 0.334 hectare is set aside, that is, the effect of this order will not create any hindrance in construction at government land bearing Survey No. 1253/2 area 0.334. 12. 12. From a bare perusal of the case, it is found that the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in disputed property bearing Survey No. 1253/1/2 area 0.0210 and No. 1253/1/2 area 0.0210, in the said order government land bearing Survey No. 1253/2 area 0.334 has not been mentioned, which was discussed by the Appellate Court in para 22 of the impugned order dated 28.11.2025. 13. In view of the aforesaid anaylsis and settled position of law, the Trial Court has not committed any error in granting temporary injunction. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. The Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another [ 2010 (9) SCC 385 while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgement of a Court, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.09.2025 is hereby affirmed. It is noteworthy to mention here that the order of learned trial Court with respect to the interim relief was issued only for a period of three months, and the stay period has been expired. It is being expected from the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and decide the matter at the earliest. 15. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.