Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Bansal vs Dr. Alok Gupta on 24 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1 MP-2691-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MP No. 2691 of 2023
(YOGESH BANSAL AND OTHERS Vs DR. ALOK GUPTA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 24-09-2025
Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Shatru Daman Singh
Bhadouriyia- Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate with Shri Somyadeep
Dwivedi- Advocates for respondent No.1 and 2.
Heard on I.A.No.10727/2025, an application along with an affidavit filed on behalf of respondents for dismissing the present misc. petition.
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that present petition has been preferred by petitioners against the order dated 01.04.2023 by which, the trial Court passed an order of injunction (Annexure P-1) under Section 94 r/w 151 of CPC, 1908. Another impugned order dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) is also under challenge in the present petition. It is further submitted that provisions of Section 94 of CPC and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC mandate for granting of injunction. In the impugned order of injunction (Annexure P-1), learned trial Court observed that neither the written statement nor reply to injunction application is filed, therefore, power under Section 94 of CPC is exercised. Subsequently, trial Court passed an order dated 08.09.2023 on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the same is available on record by way of I.A.No.4901/2025. Observing that, order will have no effect on impugned order dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure P-1). He further submitted that against the injunction Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM 2 MP-2691-2023 order, misc.appeal under Order 43 of CPC is maintainable as such misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Hence, prayed for rejection of this petition by allowing I.A.No.10727/2025.
On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners by filing reply of I.A.No.10727/2025 submitted that present misc.petition is pending consideration since 2023 and earlier, the case was heard by this Court on 01.05.2025, but respondents are trying to linger the case and, therefore, with mala fide intention filed I.A.No.10727/2025. It is submitted that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed under Section 94 of CPC and Annexure P-2 is not a separate order, it is an explanation of said impugned order (Anenxure P-1) and, therefore, this misc. petition is maintainable. Hence, prayed for rejection of I.A.No.10727/2025.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, it is found that impugned order (Annexure P-
1) was passed by the trial Court under Section 94 of CPC and Annexure P-2 is explanation of impugned order (Annexure P-1).
So far as the contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents is that according to Chapter 10 Rule 7 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, separate petition shall be made in regard to distinct subject matters, provided that one petition may be filed challenging more than one order passed in the same case on the same day, with the leave of the Court and subject to the law related to Court fees. Further contention of respondents is that one petition may be filed challenging more than one order passed in the same case on the same day, with the leave of the Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM 3 MP-2691-2023 and subject to the law related to Court fees. Petitioners have not taken any permission to file two impugned orders in one writ petition.
Section 94 of CPC reads as under:-
Supplemental proceedings-
In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed
(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;
(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;
(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC reads as under:-
1 . Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted-- Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise--
(a)that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in a execution of a decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors, [(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,] the Court may be order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
2 . Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach-- (1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM 4 MP-2691-2023 in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. (2) The Court may be order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.
Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Rules framed by the High Court are mandatory, no one can divert from this and Rules framed by the High Court are not to be overlooked. He has relied on the para 17 of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High of Gujarat and Another reported in 2020 (4) SCC 702 in which it has been held as under:-
Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 requires a third party applicant seeking copies of documents in any civil or criminal proceedings to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for which those documents are required. As such, the High Court Rules do not obstruct a third party from obtaining copies of documents in any court proceedings or any document on the judicial side. It is not as if the information is denied or refused to the applicant. All that is required to be done is to apply for the certified copies with application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information. The reason insisting upon the third party for stating the grounds for obtaining certified copies is to satisfy the court that the information is sought for bona fide reasons or to effectuate public interest. The information is held by the High Court as a trustee for the litigants in order to adjudicate upon the matter and administer justice. The same cannot be permitted by the third party to have access to such personal information of the parties or information given by the Government in the proceedings. Lest, there would be misuse of process of court and the information and it would reach unmanageable levels. If the High Court Rules framed under Article 225 provide a mechanism for invoking the said right in a particular manner, the said mechanism should be preserved and followed. The said mechanism cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM
5 MP-2691-2023 abandoned or discontinued merely because the general law - RTI Act has been enacted.
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs. M/s Kerala Rare Earth & Mineral Limited and Others reported in 2016(6) SCC 323 in which it has been held as under:-
It is well settled that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone [See: Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors. (2002) 1 SCC 633; Captain Sube Singh and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 440; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358; and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405]. Absence of the Central Government's approval to reservation and a notification as required by Section 17A, therefore, renders the State Government's claim of reservation untenable till such time a valid reservation is made in accordance with law. It is trite that the State Government's general executive power cannot be invoked to make a reservation dehors Section 17A.
In Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 1 this Court held that the State Government is denuded of its executive power in the light of Section 2 of the aforementioned Act. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 557, where this Court observed that the State is denuded of its executive power in regard to matters covered by the MMDR Act and the Rules. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone (1981) 2 SCC 205 where this Court observed:
"10. ... The statute with which we are concerned, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, is aimed ... at the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals. Surely, in the case of a scarce mineral, to permit exploitation by the State or its agency and to prohibit exploitation by private agencies is the most effective method of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM
6 MP-2691-2023 conservation and prudent exploitation. If you want to conserve for the future, you must prohibit in the present."
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has further relied on the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OPTO Circuit India Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank and Others reported in 2021 (6) SCC 707 in which it has been held as under:-
This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what would be a valid presentation of an Election Petition in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder:
"It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner".
Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the Authorised Officer is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute. As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it would fall foul of the requirement of complying due process under law. We have found fault with the Authorised Officer and declared the action bad only in so far as not following the legal requirement before and after freezing the account. This shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the matter and the action initiated against the appellant and its Directors which is a matter to be taken note in appropriate proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the aggrieved party.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that according to Chapter 10 Rule 7 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, if a person challenging two orders in same case, then he may take leave of the Court to file one writ petition by which challenging two orders, but petitioners are not taking any leaven of the Court to challenge two different Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM 7 MP-2691-2023 orders in one writ petition. So, this misc. petition is not maintainable as impact of Section 34 of CPC is just like an injunction order.
Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has further relied on the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese and Others reported in 2004(6) SCC 378 in which it has been held as under:-
10. In the case of Jagjit Singh Khanna v. Dr. Rakhal Das Mullick [AIR 1988 Cal 95 : (1988) 92 CWN 190] it has been held that a temporary injunction may be granted under Section 94(c) only if a case satisfies Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2. It is not correct to say that the court has two powers, one to grant temporary injunction under Section 94(c) and the other under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. That Section 94(c) CPC shows that the court may grant a temporary injunction thereunder, only if it is so prescribed by Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39. The court can also grant temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151, but in that case, it does not grant temporary injunction under any of the powers conferred by CPC, but under powers inherent in the constitution of the court, which is saved by Section 151 CPC.
11. The above discussion shows that the source of power of the court to grant interim relief is under Section 94.
However, exercise of that power can only be done if the circumstances of the case fall under the rules. Therefore, when a matter comes before the court, the court has to examine the facts of each case and ascertain whether the ingredients of Section 94 read with the rules in an order are satisfied and accordingly grant an appropriate relief. It is only in cases where circumstances do not fall under any of the rules prescribed that the court can invoke its inherent power under Section 151 CPC. Accordingly, the courts have to grant relief of attachment before judgment, if the circumstances fall under Order 38 CPC. Similarly, courts will grant temporary injunction if the case satisfies Order 39. So depending on the circumstances falling in the prescribed rules, the power of the court to grant specified reliefs would vary. Therefore, each set of rules prescribed is distinct and different from the other and therefore, one cannot equate rules of temporary injunction with rules of attachment before judgment although all are broadly termed as interlocutory orders.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM 8 MP-2691-2023 respondents that in Section 94 of CPC and under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPCm orders passed by the trial Court are near about similar, but order passed under Section 94 of CPC gave the effect just like under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. So, according to the provisions of Order 43 of CPC, misc. petition must be filed challenging the order passed under Section 94 of CPC.
After hearing counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that in the present case the impugned order (Annexure P-2) is not a separate order, but it is an explanation of impugned order (Annexure P-1) and, therefore, it cannot be said that impugned orders (Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2) are separate orders and collateral to each other. According to Chapter 10 Rule 7 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, it appears that both the orders have not been passed in regard to distinct subject matters, but they are same subject matter, therefore, no need to take leave from the Court to challenge them in one petition. Further, this misc. petition has been filed as per the following provisions of Order 43 of CPC:-
1. Appeals from Orders An appeal shall lie from the following Orders under the provisions of section 104, namely:-
(a) an Order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court 1[except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order VII has been followed];
(c) an Order under rule 9 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an Order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;
(d) an Order under rule 13 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an Order to set aside a decree passed ex parte.
(f) an Order under rule 21 of Order XI;
(i) an Order under rule 34 of Order XXI on an objection to the draft of a document or of an endorsement;
(j) an Order under rule 72 or rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale;
1[(ja) an Order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that an Order on the original application, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM 9 MP-2691-2023 that is to say, the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 105 of that Order is appealable.]
(k) an Order under rule 9 of Order XXII refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit;
(l) an Order under rule 10 of Order XXII giving or refusing to give leave;
(n) an Order under rule 2 of Order XXV rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an Order to set aside the dismissal of a suit; 4[(na) an Order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order XXXIII rejecting an application for permission to sue as an indigent persons:]
(p) Orders in interpleader-suits under rule 3, rule 4 or rule 6 of Order XXXV; (q) an Order under rule 2, rule 3 or rule 6 of Order XXXVIII; (r) an Order under rule 1, rule 2 4[rule 2A], rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX; (s) an Order under rule 1 or rule 4 of Order XL;
(t) an Order of refusal under rule 19 of Order XLI to re-admit, or under rule 21 of Order XLI to re-hear, an appeal;
(u) an Order rule 23 [or rule 23A] of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court; (w) an Order under rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review.
In the present case, impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed under Section 94 of CPC is only under challenge and Section 151 of CPC which is not covered under Order 43 of CPC.
So, in the considered opinion of this Court, this misc. petition is maintainable in this case.
In view of the above, I.A.No.10727/2025 is hereby rejected and this case is fixed for further hearing after four weeks.
Interim relief, if any, to continue till next date of hearing.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 26-Sep-25 05:49:54 PM