Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Kumar vs Chhotelal (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. ... on 25 April, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 25 th OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 577 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIVEK KUMAR S/O LATE VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O THIRD LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. SUDIPTA CHOUBEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CHHOTELAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
1(a). SMT. SUSHILA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI CHHOTELAL
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/O E-7/87
GREEN PARK APARTMENT FLAT NO. 401, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
1(b). KIRA S/O VIRENDRA RAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O MINI RAI HOUSE 205, OPEL AVENUE, E08,
EXTENSION GULMOHAR ARERA COLONY,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
1(c). RITA JAISWAL W/O SANTOSH JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O BHAGWANDAS BUILDING,
STATION ROAD, JAGESHWARI WEST MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
1(d). NETESH JAISWAL S/O LATE JAGDISH JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO 103,
SKYLINE TAKLI GODNI ROAD, NAGPUR
(MAHARASHTRA)
1(e). NAMIT JAISWAL S/O LATE JAGDISH JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO 103,
SKYLINE TAKLI GODNI ROAD, NAGPUR
(MAHARASHTRA)
2. MAHENDRA S/O CHOTELAL, AGED ABOUT 65
YEAR S, R/O E-7/87 GREEN PARK APARTMENT
FLAT NO. 401, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 26-04-2024
14:07:00
2
3. SMT. LEELAWATI W/O LATE GAJANAND
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O
DESHBANDHUPURA ITARSI, TEHSIL ITARSI,
DISTRICT ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JEETENDRA S/O LATE GAJANAND JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O DESHBANDHUPURA
ITARSI, TEHSIL ITARSI, DISTRICT ITARSI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. VIRENDRA S/O LATE GAJANAND JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O DESHBANDHUPURA
ITARSI, TEHSIL ITARSI, DISTRICT ITARSI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MILIND S/O LATE GAJANAND JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O DESHBANDHUPURA
ITARSI, TEHSIL ITARSI, DISTRICT ITARSI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. VIKAS S/O LATE GAJANAND JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O DESHBANDHUPURA
ITARSI, TEHSIL ITARSI, DISTRICT ITARSI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. PHOOLCHAND S/O LATE DURGAPRASAD
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O
DESHBANDHUPURA ITARSI, TEHSIL ITARSI,
DISTRICT ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. AJAY S/O LATE SHRI KANHAIYALAL JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O THIRD LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. SMT. LATA S/O LATE VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O THIRD LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. ABHISHEK S/O LATE VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O THIRD LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANMOL CHOUKSEY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT-12)
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHRIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1(D), 2-7)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 26-04-2024
14:07:00
3
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff 3 challenging order dtd. 18.11.2022 passed by 1st District Judge, Itarsi, District Narmadapuram in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 2/21 affirming the order dtd. 04.02.2021 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Itarsi, District Narmadapuram in Civil Suit No. 81A/2019 whereby in the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, Courts below have dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff 3 submits that plaintiffs are having right in the suit property and this fact is not in dispute, therefore, Courts below ought to have issued temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiffs.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1(d), 2-7 & 12 support the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the miscellaneous petition.
4. Heard learned counsel(s) for the parties and perused the record.
5. Apparently, the plaintiffs have filed the suit only for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property until & unless, the land is divided in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and no relief of declaration of title in respect of some specific portion has been claimed.
6. Both the Courts below after having appreciated the material available on record, have found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land according to the compromise deed dtd. 10.09.1976 and refused to issue temporary Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 26-04-2024 14:07:00 4 injunction, as prayed by them by way of moving application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
7. Upon perusal of the record available and in view of concurrent findings recorded by Courts below refusing to issue temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiffs, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by Courts below.
8. Resultantly, this miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE KPS Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 26-04-2024 14:07:00