Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhanu vs Vijay Garg on 9 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108
1 MP-3930-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 9 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3930 of 2025
BHANU
Versus
VIJAY GARG AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Dixit- learned Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal- learned Counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya- learned Government Advocate for respondent
No.4/ State.
ORDER
By way of this misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- defendant No.3 therein, has challenged the order dated 1st of July, 2025 passed by 17th District Judge- District Gwalior (hereinafter it would be referred to as '' first appellate Court'') in Misc. Civil Appeal No.185 of 2024 whereby the first appellate Court allowed the misc. civil appeal filed by plaintiff- respondent No.1 herein, under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC by reversing the order dated 27th of August, 2024 passed by 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior (in short '' the Trial Court'') in Regular Civil Suit No.618-A of 2014, by which the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 2 MP-3930-2025 rejected.
A few facts necessary for adjudication of present petition as narrated therein are that respondent No.1- plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction in respect of lands in dispute against present petitioner (defendant No.3 therein) and others, with pleadings that the lands in dispute were purchased by his father Late Shri Shrikrishna Das Garg from the previous land-owner Jagmohan Lal Shrivastava Pujari, son of Shri Ganga Vishnu Pujari, resident of Gospura, Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior through a registered sale deed 23-07-1964 and after death of his father, he became the successor, owner and possessor of the entire said land. The entire land was duly diverted in the year 1972 and layout plan was duly approved by Town and Country Planning and the entire land was approved as a Colony by Municipal Corporation, through Farm Four. All the lands in the Colony like Krishnapuri were solely owned and possessed by him out of which, he has sold many plots to various individuals. It was further pleaded that apart from him, no other institution, Government or Corporation has any proprietary right on any plots of land nor do they have any right to claim any plot of Colony built by him. Defendants no.1 to 3 including present petitioner are trying to forcibly occupy his land by breaking the boundary wall which has caused serious and irreparable damage to him. Therefore, he has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendants therein including present petitioner and therefore, the plaintiff prayed that defendants be directed not to create any obstacle or hindrance in the disputed wall till final Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 3 MP-3930-2025 adjudication of suit.
Defendants filed their reply. After going through plaint averments and hearing both the parties, the trial Court rejected the application of plaintiff holding that prima facie, the plaintiff has failed to show that the disputed plot and wall built on it belongs to the plaintiff and therefore, the trial Court found unproven that the balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff and in case temporary injunction is not issued, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 27th of August, 2024 passed by the Trial Court, plaintiff filed a misc. civil appeal before the first appellate Court and the First Appellate Court allowed the misc. civil appeal, by reversing the order passed by the Trial Court and allowing the application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC vide impugned order dated 1st of July, 2025.
Challenging the impugned order passed by the first Appellate Court, the present misc. petition has been filed at the instance of petitioner- defendant No.3 contending that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate is arbitrary and contrary to law. The State as well as present petitioner has raised an objection that the plaintiff is not having any title over the land in dispute. The trial Court, therefore, had rightly rejected the application of plaintiff finding no prima facie case in favour of plaintiff but the first appellate Court has given permission to the plaintiff to raise construction of boundary wall without assigning any reason. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by first appellate Court.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 4 MP-3930-2025 opposed contentions of the petitioner and by supporting the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court, it is submitted that father of plaintiff Shri Krishna Das had purchased lands through a registered sale deed. Although defendant No.3 has alleged that his garage is being operated continuously on survey no. 1616 of the said land since 2006, but he has not produced any photograph or document regarding his right or title on the said land in relation to operation of garage. Apart from this, from the documents produced by State Government, it was not found that the land in dispute is a Government land. If a temporary injunction is issued in favour of plaintiff, then there is no possibility of any inconvenience or difficulty to defendants including present petitioner. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (2010) 9 SCC 385 and the decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, it is contended that the High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Learned Counsel for the State, submitted that the disputed land is recorded as Government land in revenue records. Plaintiff has no right over the same and by means of conspiracy, he has filed a suit before the trial Curt to take possession of the disputed land through forged documents. He has neither any right or title over the said disputed land nor right to sell the said disputed land and the application was filed by plaintiff on false grounds seeking temporary injunction and the same was rightly dismissed by the trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 5 MP-3930-2025 Court finding no prima facie case in favour of plaintiff.
During the course of argument, an undertaking is given on behalf of plaintiff that there is no new construction made by him over the land in dispute and he is only repairing the boundary wall in order to protect the land in dispute and if he loses before the trial Court, then he shall remove the boundary wall with own costs.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Before considering the factual and legal issues involved in the present matter, it is noticed by this Court certain well- recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, the High Court, under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognized constraints. It can not be exercised like a `bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 6 MP-3930-2025 judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This 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. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice. [Jai Singh and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (2010) 9 SCC 385)] On perusal of impugned order passed by first appellate Court and documents available on record, it was found that defendant no.3- petitioner herein has failed to produce any photograph or document regarding his right or title in relation to operation of garage on the disputed land bearing survey No.1616. Apart from this, from the documents produced by the State Government, it was not clearly found that the land in dispute is a Government land. Therefore, in order to maintain balance of convenience, a temporary injunction has been granted only as there was no possibility of any inconvenience or difficulty to either petitioner- defendant No.3 or other defendants. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court reversing the order passed by the Trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 7 MP-3930-2025 Court.
In view of aforesaid undertaking given by plaintiff, this petition stands disposed of by affirming the order passed by the first appellate Court. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM