Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smita Vinod vs Ketan Mehta on 4 November, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
M.P. No.4698/2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 04th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 4698 of 2022
Between:-
1. SMITA VINOD W/O SHRI VINOD E.M.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
THROUGH ATTORNEY HOLDER
SHAIKH NISAMUDDIN S/O SHAIKH
RAMZAN KONAMATHI TIKKARA
NORTH GRAM KANYANU ENAKURLAM
KERLA AND J- 185-186 NEAR ASHA
NIKETAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHD. AADIL USMANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KETAN MEHTA W/O HERSHAT MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, H-18 NISHAT
COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NASEER MOHAMMED S/O RAIS
MOHAMMED R/O H.NO. 13 GALI NO. 02
OPPOSITE CENTRAL LIBRARY ITWARA
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
M.P. No.4698/2022
2
This petition coming on for admission as well as interim relief
this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure P/9) passed in MCA No.22/2022 by IVth District Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) whereby application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction, declaration of sale deeds dated 17.06.1991 and 23.03.2011 to be null and void and for permanent injunction in respect of suit property bearing plot No.C-6, Padamnath Nagar Govindpura, Bhopal (M.P.). The case of the petitioner/plaintiff in short is that previous owner Ajaya Kumar had purchased the property on 07.08.1987 from Sangam Sahkari Girah Nirman Samiti, Bhopal who executed the power of attorney in the name of Vinod E.M. and thereafter, Vinod E.M. being attorney of Ajay Kumar executed a gift deed dated 11.04.2019 in the name of petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter, amended deed dated 01.10.2019 was executed. The petitioner/plaintiff pleaded that the defendants had prepared one forged and fabricated registered sale deed dated 17.06.1991. Along with original suit plaintiff has also M.P. No.4698/2022 3 filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking direction to restrain the respondents from not creating hindrance in the construction work of the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below failed to consider the legal position, therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff prays for setting aside the order passed by the Courts below.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. While exercising discretion for grant of interim injunction the following three principles are applied:
(i) Whether plaintiff has a prima facie case;
(ii) Whether balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff;
(iii) Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if temporary injunction is declined.M.P. No.4698/2022 4
7. The first appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction to deal with the prayer of injunction on the aforesaid sound principles of law.
8. Hence, I do not find any apparent error committed by the learned first appellate Court so as to invoke inherent powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition being without any merit fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE DPS Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Date: 2022.11.10 18:01:35 +05'30'