Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Gupta vs Shri Sunil Sharma on 18 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648
1 MCC-586-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 586 of 2023
JITENDRA GUPTA
Versus
SHRI SUNIL SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
None for respondent no. 1 though served.
Smt. Ashapriya, respondent no. 2, in person along with Shri P.C.
Chandil and Shri Dinesh Baghel - Advocates
ORDER
1. This application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, complaining the willful disobedience and violation of order dated 07.02.2023, passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.241/2015, by which the parties were restrained from creating any third party interest by alienating the property in dispute.
2. It is the case of the applicant that, although respondent No.2, Smt. Ashapriya, was one of the appellants, but in spite of the fact that the interim order was passed in an appeal filed by herself, she executed a sale deed on 10.02.2023/28.02.2023 in favor of one Ramkishore Gupta thereby alienating 156.83 square meters of land forming part of Araji No.1519 situated in Phoop Ward No.10 Patwari Halka No.63 District Bhind.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 2 MCC-586-2023
3. Initially, Sushil Kumar, Deputy Registrar, was made as respondent No.1, and Smt. Mamta was made respondent No.3. However, the name of Smt. Mamta was later on deleted. Smt. Ashapriya filed her vakalatnama on 10/07/2023 but did not file any reply. In the meanwhile, on an application filed by applicant, the name of respondent No.1 was corrected, and in place of Sushil Kumar, Deputy Registrar, Sunil Kumar, Deputy Registrar, was made as respondent No.1. By order dated 16/06/2025, the amendment in the cause title, thereby correcting the name of respondent No.1, was allowed, and notices were issued to the newly impleaded respondent No. 1.
4. As per the service report, the notices have been delivered on respondent No. 1, but none appears for respondent No.1.
5. On 25/03/2026, a specific statement was made by counsel for applicant that the applicant does not wish to prosecute the purchaser and accordingly, he has not been made a party. However, counsel for respondent No.2-Smt. Ashapriya, had prayed for a last opportunity of one week to file reply. Since respondent No.2 had already consumed more than two years, as she had filed her vakalatnama on 10/07/2023 and, in spite of expiry of more than two years, she had not filed her reply, therefore, a week's time was granted to file reply and the case was directed to be listed on 01/04/2026. It was made clear that, in case if respondent No. 2 does not file any reply, then it shall be presumed that she has nothing to say in her defence, and the allegations made in MCC shall be treated as admitted.
6. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 01/04/2026. On 01/04/2026, a statement was made by counsel for respondent No.2 that he has no Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 3 MCC-586-2023 instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2.
7. However, sensing some foul play, this Court, after observing that the entire attempt of respondent No.2 appears to be to avoid filing of reply, issued warrant of arrest against respondent No.2 - Smt. Ashapriya.
8. It is not out of place to mention here that respondent No. 2 had mentioned her address in the sale deed as resident of Phoop, Tehsil and District Bhind, and at present, 2, Patel Nagar Society, Mandav Road, Dahod (Gujarat).
9. On 08/04/2026, respondent No.2, Smt. Ashapriya alias Tona, was produced by a lady Constable, and the following order was passed :
"Respondent No.2 Smt. Ashapriya @ Tona is produced by Lady Constable Ms. Nidhi Bhadoria, posted in Police Station Phoop, District Bhind. Shri Brajesh Singh Parmar, Sub-Inspector also posted in Police Station Phoop, District Bhind is also present alongwith Lady Constable.
By order dated 25/03/2026, this Court had granted a week's time to respondent No.2 to file reply to application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and the case was fixed for 01/04/2026. On 01/04/2026, Shri Vinod Pathak, an associate counsel of Shri Rajnish Sharma, made a statement that he has no instructions. Since this Court was of the view that entire attempt of respondent No.2 is to avoid filing of reply, therefore, it was held that respondent No.2 is deliberately avoiding hearing of this case. Accordingly, warrant of arrest was issued against respondent No.2 Smt. Ashapriya @ Tona.
Today, respondent No.2 has been produced.
It was submitted by Smt. Ashapriya @ Tona respondent No.2 that she was not aware of listing of the case either on 25/03/2026 or 01/04/2026. She was never informed by her counsel that she is required to file reply. Similarly, I.A. No.3233/2026 has also been filed by respondent No.2 on similar ground for grant of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 4 MCC-586-2023 bail.
It is submitted by Shri Brajesh Singh that in the order dated 01/04/2026, this Court had mentioned, address of respondent No.2 as 2, Patel Nagar Society, Mandav Road, Dahod Gujrat. (It is not out of place to mention here that the aforesaid address was mentioned on the basis of address given by respondent No.2 in the sale- deed.) It is further submitted that when an inquiry was done with regard to whereabouts of respondent No.2 in Dahod, then it was informed that said house has already been sold and she has shifted to Chittorgarh (Rajasthan), where her matrimonial house is situated. When an inquiry was made from her matrimonial house, then it was informed that she has gone to her parental home at Phoop, District Bhind. It is also submitted by Shri Brajesh Singh that in fact respondent No.2 was in the Court premises on 01/04/2026.
When a specific question was put to respondent No.2 as to whether, she was in the Court premises on 01/04/2026, then she admitted that she had come to Gwalior Court in respect of this case alongwith her father-in-law and she was in the Court premises on 01/04/2026. She further admitted that on 23/03/2026, Shri Rajnish Sharma had informed her father-in-law about the listing of the case.
Thus, the verbal submission made by Smt. Ashapriya @ Tona, as well as ground raised in I.A.No.3233/2026, which has been filed for grant of bail, are false even to the knowledge of respondent No.2.
Alongwith I.A. No.3233/2026, the affidavit of Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra, who is the father-in-law of respondent No.2, has been filed, making a statement on oath that contents of I.A. No.3233/2026 are true to his personal knowledge.
Thus, it is clear that Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra, who is father-in-law of respondent No.2, has also given a false affidavit in support of I.A. No.3233/2026.
It is really shocking that on one hand, respondent No.2 has shown her complete disregard to the interim order passed by this Court, and when she was compelled to file a reply of application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, she started playing fraud on the Court under the hope and belief that she would succeed in her ill desires, and in spite of the fact that Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 5 MCC-586-2023 Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra, who is father-in-law of respondent No.2, had also informed the police that respondent No.2 has gone to her parental home, which is situated in Phoop, has given a false affidavit that respondent No.2 was not aware of proceedings which were to take place on 25/03/2026 and 01/04/2026. Jagdish Chandra Kabra is also present in Court. Accordingly, issue notice to Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra as to why he should not be prosecuted for filing a false affidavit before this Court in support of I.A. No.3233/2026.
Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra, who is present in the Court, and is identified by respondent No.2 accepts notice and prays for two days' time to file reply.
So far as I.A. No.3233/2026 for grant of bail to respondent No.2 is concerned, so far respondent N o . 2 has not been held guilty for violating the temporary injunction order, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to send her to jail by rejecting the application for grant of bail.
Under these circumstances, but looking to the conduct of respondent No.2 by which she had played fraud on the Court by making false statement, I.A. No.3233/2026 is allowed and subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to be deposited by respondent No.2 in the Registry of this Court by today itself, as well as on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) to the satisfaction of Principal Registrar of this Court, with an undertaking that she would personally appear on the next date of hearing, i.e. 10/04/2026, and all other dates which shall be fixed in this case, she shall be released on bail.
The deposit of cost of Rs.25,000/- shall be a condition precedent for her release.
List on 10/04/2026 to enable respondent No.2 to file her reply to application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC as well as to enable Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra to file reply to the contempt notice.
The office is directed to register a separate contempt proceedings against Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra and list that case also alongwith this case on 10/04/2026."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 6 MCC-586-2023
10. Thus, it is clear that the police, who was making every efforts to trace out respondent No. 2 in order to execute the warrant of arrest, had found that in fact respondent No. 2 had come down to Phoop from her matrimonial house at Chittorgarh and from Phoop, she had come to Gwalior on 01/04/2026 but did not appear before this Court. Thus, it appears that under a strategy, a false statement of no instructions was made might be with an intention, that since, the current address of respondent no.2 is not known to any body, therefore, even if this Court issues SPC to the respondent no.2, then the same shall not be served upon the respondent no.2.
11. Since that statement was made by Brajesh Singh Parmar, Sub- Inspector, posted at Police Station Phoop, District Bhind, in the presence of respondent No.2, therefore, respondent No.2 was asked as to whether the information which is being given by Brajesh Singh is correct or not, then she fairly conceded that Shri Rajnish Sharma had already informed them about the listing of the case on 01/04/2026 and she had come down to Gwalior on 1-4-2026, but thereafter she did not appear.
12. Be that whatever it may be.
13. I.A. No.3233/2026 was filed for grant of bail to respondent No.2, which was supported by an affidavit of Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra, father- in-law of respondent No. 2. In said applicaiton, it was mentioned that respondent No. 2 was never aware of the facts of the case and she was also not aware of the listing of the case on 01/04/2026, and, therefore, she did not deliberately avoid her appearance on 01.04.2026.
14. Since the said application was found to be incorrect in view of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 7 MCC-586-2023 statement made by Shri Brajesh Singh, Sub-Inspector, as well as admitted by respondent No.2 herself, therefore, a contempt notice was also issued to Shri Jagdish Chandra Kabra for filing a false affidavit. Accordingly, Conc. No. 2527/2026 was registered and notices were received by Jagdish Chandra Kabra who was also present in the court and said case is also listed today for analogus hearing, which shall be disposed of by a separate order.
15. Document No.3003/2026 has been filed by respondent No.2 by way of her reply to an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC which reads as under :
"REPLY OF APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2-A CPC Respondent No. 2 most respectfully submits the reply as under:
1. That, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the allege breach of order dated 07.02.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Second Appeal 241/2015 Mata Prasad Gupta and others v/s Smt. Mamta @ Mona and others.
2. That, it is most respectfully submit that the respondent No. 2 has not filed the aforesaid second appeal 241/2015. In this appeal, the respondent No.2 engage Shri P.C. Chandrail advocate her counsel on 08.04.2026. After filing the Vakalatnama Shri P.C. Chandrail advocate made the inspection of second appeal on ERP in his office and during inspection he showed the respondent No. 2 the vakalatnama of Shri Sanjay Singh advocate filed with the memo of appeal for appellants on 01.08.2015 and in this vakalatnama name of the respondent No. 2 Ashapriya mentioned at S.No.3. The respondent No.2 shocked to see that on this vakalatnama forged signature of respondent No. 2 Ashapriya has been made, she has not signed the vakalatnama dated 01.08.2015. Till date the respondent No. 2 has not met with Shri Sanjay Singh advocate. A copy of the vakalatnama of Shri Sanjay Singh advocate Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 8 MCC-586-2023 dated 01.08.2015 filed with the second appeal 241/2015 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R/1.
3. That, as the respondent No. 2 did not filed any appeal, did not signed any vakalatnama to filed the second appeal on 01.08.2015, the respondent No.2 had no knowledge of filing the second appeal and any order pass on 07.02.2023 in the second appeal. The order dated 07.02.2023 was not in the knowledge of the respondent No. 2, it was never notice to the respondent No. 2 Smt. Ashapriya, therefore, at the time of execution of the sale deed the respondent No. 2 had no knowledge of the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in second appeal 241/2015. Judgment of the Court below is in favour of respondent No.2, therefore, there was no need to file the appeal.
4.That, from the aforesaid it is crystal clear that the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in SA 241/2015 was not in the knowledge of the respondent No. 2, therefore, no case of disobedience or breach of injunction of order dated 07.02.2023 is made out against the respondent No. 2 Smt. Ashapriya @ Tona.
5. That, father and mother of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Ashapriya was died in the childhood of respondent No. 2 and after their death she was looked after by her uncle Shri Mata Prasad. Marriage of respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 07.05.2015. After his marriage the respondent No. 2 residing with her in-laws at Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
6. That, the respondent No. 2 has the highest regard to the Hon'ble Court. As the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Second Appeal 241/2015 was not in the knowledge of the respondent No. 2, when the sale deed dated 10.02.2023 was executed by her. She tenders her unconditional and unqualified apology for her inadvertent mistake.
7. That, in the aforesaid circumstance, application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed against the respondent No. 2.Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 9 MCC-586-2023 It is therefore most humbly prayed that the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed."
16. It is her contention that, although the appeal has been filed by her uncle, Mata Prasad, and her aunt, Smt. Usha, but she never filed Second Appeal No.241/2015 and the vakalatnama does not bear her signatures. It was further submitted that whatever admission was made by respondent No.2 on 08/04/2026 was on account of her unexpected situation on account of her custody, but now, by taking a U-turn, it has been pleaded that she never entered in the Court premises on 01/04/2026 .
17. A further stand has been taken that, since respondent No.2 was not aware of the interim order dated 07/02/2023, therefore, the sale deed was executed under bonafide belief, but this reply is completely silent as to whether she was ever informed by her earlier counsel about the listing of the case on 01/04/2026 or not and whether she had come down to Gwalior on 01/04/2026 or not.
18. I.A. No. 3330/2026 has been filed for modification of order dated 08/04/2026. Although by this application, applicant wanted the recall of condition of deposit of Rs.25000/- as a condition precedent for her release on bail but in this application, it was mentioned that respondent No.2 did not enter the High Court premises on 01/04/2026. Paragraph No.6 of I.A. No.3330/2026 reads as under:
"6. That, during the course of hearing, a confusion arose regarding the presence of the applicant on 01.04.2026, as the sub inspector made incorrect statement that respondent was present in the court premises on 01.04.2026. It is respectfully submitted that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 10 MCC-586-2023 applicant was not personally present on the said date. Due to mental stress, tension, fear and sudden custodial situation and misunderstanding, the applicant could not properly explain the facts before this Hon'ble Court. The fact is that applicant very first time enter in the Hon'ble high court premises on 08.04.2026. Before 08.04.2026 she never came in this court premises"
19. In the entire application, it has not been mentioned that respondent No. 2 never came to Gwalior, but an attempt was made to twist the facts by stating that she never entered inside the Court premises either on 01/04/2026 or prior thereto.
20. Under these circumstances, it is clear that respondent No. 2 was trying to twist the facts and is not ready to show any repentance for what she has already done.
21. As already pointed out, in the sale deed, she has given her permanent address as Phoop, Tehsil and District Bhind, whereas she has given her present address as Patel Society, Mandav Road, Dahod (Gujarat). According to respondent No.2, she lost her parents during childhood and therefore, she shifted to Dahod (Gujarat) to stay with her uncle and aunt. She got married in the year 2015 and, from 2015 onwards, she is living in Chittogarh, i.e. 109, Shastri Nagar, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
22. When a specific question was put to respondent No.2 as to why she did not disclose her address of Chittorgarh and why she disclosed the addresses where she is not residing, then it was submitted that since Phoop was her permanent address, therefore, the address of Phoop was disclosed and since Adhar Card is of Dahod (Gujrat), therefore, the address of Dahod (Gujrat) was mentioned in the sale deed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 11 MCC-586-2023
23. As already pointed out, it is the case of respondent No.2 herself that she got married in the year 2015 and from 2015 onwards she is residing in her matrimonial house i.e. 109, Shastri Nagar Chittorgarh. It is submitted by respondent No.2 that, after her marriage, she did not change her address in the Aadhaar card and her name is also not mentioned in the voter list of Shastri Nagar, Chittorgarh, and she has never casted her vote after her marriage.
24. Although this Court was not inclined to accept the contention and accordingly, it was made it clear, that this Court would deal this aspect after getting it investigated by the Police as to whether respondent No.2 is having any Adhar card or the voter ID of Chittogarh, then it was requested by respondent No.2 that police investigation may not be directed and she may be apologized for giving wrong addresses in the sale deed.
25. However, it was submitted by respondent No.2 that she never came to the Court premises on 01/04/2026.
26. At the cost of repetition, it is once again clarified that on 08/04/2026, a specific statement was made by Brajesh Singh Parmar, Sub- Inspector, posted at Police Station Phoop that when they tried to trace out respondent No.2 at the address of Dahod (Gujrat), then they came to know that she had shifted to Chittorgarh. When police party went to Chittorgarh, then they were told that respondent No.2 has already gone to her parental home at Phoop and when they inquired from Phoop, then they came to know that even on 01.04.2026 she had come to Gwalior. On 8-4-2026 also, they came to know that the respondent No.2 has already moved for attending the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 12 MCC-586-2023 Court proceedings in the High Court at Gwalior and, ultimately, respondent No.2 was taken in custody from Shiv Palace, Bhind Road, Gwalior, on 08/04/2026 at 9:00 a.m.
27. Accordingly, it is clear that respondent No.2 was aware of each and every fact and accordingly she rushed to Gwalior knowingfully well that now the police is after her to execute the arrest warrant.
28. Since a detailed defence has been taken by Jagdish Chandra Kabra in Conc No.2527/2026, therefore, this Court was inclined to direct for police investigation to find out as to whether respondent No.2 had ever come to Gwalior on 01.04.2026 or not, and was also inclined to direct the police to seize all the CCTV footage's of the toll booths falling between Phoop and Chittorgarh as well as Phoop and Gwalior to find out as to whether the defence taken by Jagdish Chandra Kabra in Conc. No.2527/2026 and reiterated by respondent No.2 verbally before this Court can be accepted or not.
29. Faced with such a situation, respondent No.2 again requested this Court not to conduct any police investigation. Thus, it appears that, although respondent No.2 has taken a defence but she also knows that ultimately the said defence will be proved wrong.
30. Thus, it is clear that the respondent no.2 is still trying to play fraud on the Court.
31. This Court has not issued any contempt notice to respondent No.2 for any of her conduct either on 01.04.2026 or on 08.04.2026; therefore, the said conduct would be considered only for the purposes of deciding Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 13 MCC-586-2023 application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A(2) CPC, to find out as to whether the intentions of respondent No.2 is to continue with the breach of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC or she had realized her mistake.
32. The manner in which respondent No.2 has tried to avoid filing of her reply on or before 1-4-2026, by getting a statement of no objection by her counsel, inspite of the fact that she was present in the Court premises, this Court is of the considered opinion that since there is no possibility of any improvement on the part of the respondent No.2, therefore, her conduct shall be considered for the purposes of punishment.
33. So far as the contention of respondent No.2 that the appeal was filed without her knowledge and without there being any vakalantama on her part is concerned, the other co-appellants are uncle and aunt of respondent No.2, with whom she has spent her childhood. It is not her case that she was never informed by her uncle and aunt about the filing of the appeal. Whether the vakalatnama bears her signature or not, is a different question but in absence of her contention that she was never informed by her uncle Mataprasad and aunt Usha and she was never aware of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defence taken by respondent No.2 that she was not aware of the interim order passed in S.A. No.241/2015 is false and therefore, it is hereby rejected.
34. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.2 was well aware of the interim order and, therefore, she deliberately gave her wrong address in the sale deed so that she may not get easily traced in case if any proceedings take Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 14 MCC-586-2023 place on account of violation of temporary injunction order.
35. Above all, use of an Adhar card with an address which was already left by respondent No.2 about 8 to 9 years back, itself is a serious matter and which also indicates that the intention of respondent No.2 right from very beginning was to play fraud on the Court by running away from the clutches of the Court.
36. Be that whatever it may be.
37. One thing is clear that the sale deed dated 10.02.2023/28.02.2023 has been executed in utter violation of the temporary injunction order dated 07.02.2023 passed in S.A. No.241/2015.
38. The Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh and Others Vs. Harbans Singh and Others, reported in (1995)6 SCC 50 has held as under :
4. As said before, the assignment is by means of a registered deed. The assignment had taken place after the passing of the preliminary decree in which Pritam Singh has been allotted 1/3rd share. His right to property to that extent stood established. A decree relating to immovable property worth more than hundred rupees, if being assigned, was required to be registered. That has instantly been done. It is per se property, for it relates to the immovable property involved in the suit. It clearly and squarely fell within the ambit of the restraint order. In sum, it did not make any appreciable difference whether property per se had been alienated or a decree pertaining to that property. In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. Once that is so, Pritam Singh and his assignees, respondents herein, cannot claim to be impleaded as parties on the basis of assignment.
Therefore, the assignees-respondents could not have been impleaded by the trial court as parties to the suit, in disobedience of its orders. The principles of lis pendens are altogether on a different footing. We do not propose to examine their involvement presently. All what is emphasised is that the assignees in the present facts and circumstances had no cause to be impleaded as parties to the suit. On that basis, there was no cause for going into the question of interpretation of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the settlement deed. The path treaded by the courts below was, in our view, out of their bounds. Unhesitatingly, we upset all the three orders of the courts below and reject the application of the assignees for impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 15 MCC-586-2023
39. Thus, it is clear that although under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, the sale deed by itself would not become invalid and, at the most, it can be said that the subsequent purchaser would be bound by the decree, but if a sale deed has been executed in violation of the temporary injunction order, then it has to be treated as non est or bad in law.
40. Under these circumstances, the sale deed dated 10.02.2023/28.02.2023 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of Ramkishore Gupta is hereby declared as null and void.
41. As already pointed out applicant has not impleaded purchaser Ramkishore Gupta as a respondent, and on 25/03/2026, a statement was made that applicant does not wish to prosecute the purchaser.
42. Aforesaid statement made by applicant on 25/03/2026 cannot be enlarged to the extent that applicant has accepted the sale deed dated 10.02.2023/28.02.2023. At the most, it can be said that applicant by not impleading the subsequent purchaser has decided not to prosecute him for the penal consequences, but non-impleadment of the subsequent purchaser will not amount to confer any right or title over him on the basis of a sale deed which was executed in utter violation of temporary injunction order.
43. Accordingly, since the sale deed was executed in utter violation of temporary injunction order, therefore, respondent no.2 is held guilty of committing breach of order dated 07.02.2023 passed in S.A. No.241/2015, and it is directed that respondent No.2 shall execute a deed of cancellation by 15.05.2026. She will also return the consideration amount to purchaser Ramkishore Gupta either by banker's cheque or by a cheque of her own Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 16 MCC-586-2023 account and shall file the copy of the cancellation deed before the Principal Registrar of this Court on or before 15/05/2026. If any mutation has taken place on the basis of sale deed dated 10.02.2023/28.02.2023, then the Collector, Bhind is directed to immediately delete the name of purchaser and restore the status quo ante which was prevailing on 9/02/2023.
44. Let the said exercise be also completed by 15/05/2026.
45. The Collector, Bhind is directed to file the copy of order as well as the correction in the revenue record before the Principal Registrar of this Court latest by 25/05/2026.
46. Heard on the question of punishment.
47. It is submitted by Shri P.C. Chandil that respondent No.2 is a lady and in fact she appears to have become a victim of some conspiracy hatched by her own near and dear relatives. It is submitted that although her conduct in making false statements before this Court is unpardonable, but this Court may consider her prayer as a mercy and she may not be sent to civil jail for a period of three months. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 is having minor child and in case, if She is sent to Civil Jail, then the minor child will also suffer incarceration. It is further submitted that except the land which was sold by respondent No.2, she does not have any other property. Therefore, even if any order is passed by this Court, thereby attaching the property of respondent No.2, it will not yield any fruitful result. It is further submitted that for the misdeeds of executing the sale deed with fraudulent and incorrect addresses knowingfully well that there is a temporary injunction order and misdeeds of making false statements and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 17 MCC-586-2023 defence before this Court after 01/04/2026, she is ready to deposit a amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the Registry of this Court to show her bonafide that she has accepted her mistake from the bottom of her heart and no such mistake shall be repeated in future.
48. Although counsel for applicant submitted that the wrongdoers should not be shown any mercy because deterrence is one of the important ingredients of sentencing policy, but he fairly conceded that respondent No.2 is a lady and by offering to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, it appears that she has accepted her mistake/guilt from the bottom of her heart, and therefore, one more opportunity can be granted to her to improve herself.
49. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
50. Although deterrence is one of the important ingredients of sentencing policy, but at the same time, if a wrongdoer expresses gestures which indicate that now bonafidely she has realized that she should not have taken a wrong path and if she wants to come back on the correct path and offers an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited in the Registry of this Court, then this Court is also of considered opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to respondent No.2.
51. However, it is submitted by Shri Prashant Sharma that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which shall be deposited by Respondent No. 2, may be directed to be utilized for the benefit of the Advocates by directing to use the said amount for improving the infrastructural facilities in the Bar rooms.
52. Since Advocates are also the officers of the Court and Bar is an integral part of the judicial dispensation system, therefore, the submission Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 18 MCC-586-2023 made by Shri Prashant Sharma for utilization of the amount for improving the infrastructural facilities in the Bar rooms appear to be bonafide.
53. It is submitted that in this building, there are five rooms which are being used by the Advocates as a halls for spending their free time and for sharpening their legal knowledge. It is submitted that there is a scarcity of good water purifiers as well as water coolers, and in case if the aforesaid amount is directed to be utilized for the said purpose, then the bonafide offer made by respondent No. 2 shall also yield good results and respondent No.2 will get blessings for the offer made by her. It is further submitted that there is no substitute of blessings and if respondent No.2 gets the blessings then it will be beneficial for her also.
54. Accordingly, it is directed that if the respondent no.2 execute a deed of cancelation of sale deed dated 10-2-2023/28-2-2023 after returning the consideration amount to the purchaser and also deposits an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the Registry of this Court by 15.05.2026, then no punishment will be required to be imposed as provided under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. It is made clear that the expenses for execution of cancellation deed shall be borne by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 shall produce the copy of the cancellation deed before the Principal Registrar of this Court on or before 15-5-2026. It is made clear that in case of non- compliance of either both the aforesaid conditions or even if any of the condition, the matter shall be heard on the question of punishment and the Principal Registrar of this Court, shall list the matter before this Court for hearing on the question of punishment.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 19 MCC-586-2023
55. It is directed that the amount so deposited by respondent No.2 shall be utilized by the High Court Bar Association Gwalior for purchasing five water purifiers and five water coolers for installing in each of the halls which are being used by Lawyers for spending their free time.
56. Now, the next question is with regard to conduct of respondent No. 1.
57. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that interim order was passed on 07/02/2023, and information was given to respondent No.1 on 13/02/2023, whereas sale deed was already executed on 10/02/2023. Therefore, strictly speaking the respondent No.1 may not have been aware of the interim order passed by this Court, however, it is submitted that nowadays it is being experienced that in spite of interim orders, the Deputy Registrar/Sub-Registrar are still going ahead with the execution of documents on a simple pretext that they are concerned about the collection of revenue and not the compliance of orders of the Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may not take any action against respondent No.1 in the present case, but a direction may be given to the I.G., Registration, to issue a circular to all persons involved in the registration of documents to the effect that in case if there is any interim order by the Court, then such documents should not be executed and should be kept in abeyance awaiting permission from the Court.
58. The submission made by Shri Prashant Sharma appears to be bonafide because in case if the document is not executed, then the violation of order of the Court will come to a halt and keeping the execution of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12648 20 MCC-586-2023 document in abeyance will also not adversely affect the rights of any of the litigating party because after the final order is passed by the Court, further proceedings can be taken up by the Deputy Registrar or Sub-Registrar with regard to the registration of the said document.
59. Accordingly, I.G., Registration, is requested to issue a circular to all Deputy Registrars or Sub-Registrars to the effect that in case if any interim order is produced by a party, then they shall not execute the document and shall keep the registration of said document in abeyance awaiting the further orders from the Court.
60. Let said circular be issued within a period of one month from today.
61. The I.G., Registration, is also directed to submit a copy of such circular/guidelines to the Principal Registrar of this Court latest by 25/05/2026.
62. With aforesaid observations, this MCC is finally disposed of.
63. The Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to sent a copy of this order to Collector Bhind as well as I.G. Registration for necessary information and compliance (G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Aman Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-04-2026 12:56:16 PM