Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kamla Sharma vs Gopal Datt Dholakhandi on 15 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 MCC-2277-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MCC No. 2277 of 2023
(SMT. KAMLA SHARMA Vs GOPAL DATT DHOLAKHANDI AND OTHERS )
Dated : 15-04-2026
Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
Shri Sandeep Nirankari and Shri Rohit Jagwani, learned counsels for the respondents No. 2 & 3.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
This is a case where it is alleged that in spite of temporary injunction order, the respondent No. 1 has sold a part of disputed property to respondents No. 2 & 3 as well as respondent No. 4. By order dated 23/03/2026, this Court had exonerated respondent No. 4 on a concessional statement made by counsel for respondents that land which was purchased by respondent No. 4 was not subject matter of the dispute. Since the respondents No. 2 & 3 were not present either in person or through their counsel, therefore, warrant of arrest was issued against them.
2. Today, respondent No. 2 has been brought in custody, whereas, respondent No. 3 has appeared on his own.
3. I.A. No. 2874/2026 was filed for recall of arrest warrant issued against respondents No. 2 & 3 on 23/03/2026. However, as already pointed out, respondent No. 2 has been arrested and, accordingly, I.A. No. 2874/2026 stands dismissed as rendered infructuous qua respondent No. 2.
4. In I.A. No. 2874/2026, it has been mentioned that on 23/03/2026 Shri Sandeep Nirankari, counsel for respondent No. 2 was out of station and, therefore, he could not appear on 23/03/2026, but he had instructed has associate Advocate Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 2 MCC-2277-2023 Shri Rohit Jagwani to appear in this case. While coming to the Court, the vehicle of Shri Rohit Jagwani Advocate failed and, therefore, he could not attend the matter on 23/03/2026. In this application, it is no where mentioned that where Shri Sandeep Nirankari had gone and when Shri Rohit Jagwani came to the Court and why he didnot pray for recall of arrest warrant on the very same day pointing out that his vehicle had broken down. Therefore, it is clear that the ground raised by Shri Sandeep Nirankari that he was out of station and he has instructed his associate Shri Rohit Jagwani Advocate is false.
5. However, the next question for consideration is that since respondent No. 3 is present therefore, whether this Court should take him in custody or not because by order dated 23/03/2026 warrant of arrest was issued against respondent No. 3 after holding him guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order dated 9-12-2015 ?
6. Although, this Court vide order dated 23/03/2026 has held respondent No. 3 guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order dated 09/12/2015, but today document No. 3051/2026 has been filed and the respondents No. 2 & 3 have filed their reply to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC.
7. Since, this Court has already held respondents No. 2 & 3 are guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order dated 09/12/2015, therefore, it was expected from respondents No. 2 & 3 to file an application for recall of finding of guilt with a liberty to put forward their defence, but even that much of courtesy has not been shown and no application has been filed for recall of finding of the guilt recorded by this Court vide order dated 23/03/2026. However, vide order dated 23/03/2026, respondents No. 2 & 3 were held guilty primarily on the ground that they have not filed any response. Under these circumstances, this Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 3 MCC-2277-2023 Court is of considered opinion that although respondents have not sought recall of finding of guilt recorded by this Court vide order dated 23/03/2026, but since respondents No. 2 & 3 have filed their return, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that by recalling the finding of guilt recorded against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, an opportunity should be granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to justify their stand. Under these circumstances, although respondent No. 3 has not given any sufficient cause for recall of order, but since this Court has recalled the finding, therefore, subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Registry of this Court latest by tomorrow, warrant of arrest issued against respondent No. 3 by order dated 23/3/2026 is hereby recalled.
8. I.A. No. 3382/2026 has been filed for grant of bail to respondent no.2.
9. Since respondent No.2 has been arrested and this Court has decided to reconsider the allegations made against respondent Nos 2 and 3, therefore, I.A. No. 3382/2026 is allowed. Subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by respondent No.2 and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the satisfaction of Principal Registrar of this Court, respondent No.2 shall be released on bail.
10. Considered the defence of the respondents no. 2 and 3.
11. The respondents no. 2 and 3 are the purchasers of disputed land from the respondent no.1. Document No. 3051/2026 has been filed jointly by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pleading interalia that they were never informed by respondent No. 1 about pendency of appeal as well as injunction order. It was claimed by them that they are the bonafide purchasers and mistake of purchasing the property has occurred due to lack of knowledge of subsisting interim order.
Therefore, it is claimed that intention of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was not malafide.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM4 MCC-2277-2023
12. Considered the defence taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
13. Before considering the conduct of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in claiming that they had bonafidely purchased the property in dispute, this Court would like to consider certain more aspects. Respondent No. 2 had filed a Vakalatnama on 6/1/2026, whereas respondent No. 3 Ramendra Singh had filed his Vakalatnama on 29/1/2026. Admittedly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not file their reply till 23/3/2026 and on 23/3/2026, even their counsel was not present. This court has already held that the reason for absence of their counsel was not bonafide and the intention on the part of the respondents no. 2 and 3 was to somehow get adjournment. Be that as it may be.
14. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were present in the Court, and therefore, they were asked as to why they did not file their reply along with Vakalatnama. It was submitted by respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 3 that after receiving the copy of a notice in the month of December 2025, they contacted Shri Sandeep Nirankari and gave their Vakalatnama, but Shri Sandeep Nirankari, Advocate, assured that he will file reply on their behalf and it was Shri Sandeep Nirankari who did not prepare the reply. The aforesaid defence was taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the presence of Shri Sandeep Nirankari, and Shri Sandeep Nirankari admitted that it was he who discouraged respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from filing reply and he had assured that he would file reply on their behalf. How the reply could have been filed without the affidavit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is beyond the understanding of this Court? Be that whatever it may be. One thing is clear that it was the counsel who discouraged respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from filing their reply. Thus, it is clear that Shri Sandeep Nirankari, Advocate, who was expected to uphold the majesty of law and the dignity of the institution being an Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 5 MCC-2277-2023 Officer of the court, decided to malign the image of the institution, by taking the proceedings in a lighter manner. It is a matter of introspection for Shri Sandeep Nirankari, and since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not demanded any action against Shri Sandeep Nirankari for not filing reply or discouraging them from filing reply, therefore, the aspect of not filing of reply at the instance of Shri Sandeep Nirankari is closed for the time being.
12. That is not the end of the matter. By order dated 23/3/2026, respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were directed to give the details of their entire property, so that in the light of provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, an order of attachment can be passed, and accordingly, I.A. No. 3383/2026 has been filed, thereby giving the details of properties of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is mentioned that the details of some of the properties of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are being filed, and sought further time of two days to file the details of remaining properties.
(i) By sale deed dated 18/8/2025, respondent No. 2 had purchased a plot bearing property ID No. 1801073 from Anand Realators. The said property is situated in Indore.
(ii) Another sale deed dated 11/5/2022 has been filed to show that respondent No. 3 has purchased Araji No. 36 area 0.17 arre and Araji No. 153 area 0.71 arre situated in village Jaitpur, Pargana Jaura, District Morena.
Thus, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came up with a case that they are the owners and in possession of two different plots situated in Indore and 0.88 arre of Araji No. 36 and 153 situated in village Jaitpur. However, during the course of arguments, it was pointed out by Shri Rohit Jagwani, who is also appearing along with Shri Sandeep Nirankari, that respondent No. 3 has sent certain sale deeds by WhatsApp message according to which,
(i) Araji No. 156 area 0.74 arre situated in village Jaitpur, Pargana Jaura, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 6 MCC-2277-2023 District Morena, was purchased by him from Urmila Gurjar by sale deed dated 19/5/2022.
(ii) By sale deed dated 27/9/2021, respondent No. 3 had purchased Araji Nos. 36, 67, 70, 73, 80, 106, 153 total area 2.35 arre situated in village Jaitpur, Pargana Jaura, District Morena from Pappu Singh, Ramniwas Gurjar and Shanti Gurjar.
(iii) By registered sale deed dated 3/8/2021, respondent No. 3 has purchased Araji No. 292 total area 0.35 arre situated in village Burhawali, Pargana Jaura, District Morena from Nanikram Gurjar, Bakil Gurjar, Sabri Bai Gurjar and Bhuri Gurjar.
(iv) By sale deed dated 7/11/2024, respondent No. 3 has purchased Araji No. 254/1 total area 0.084 hectare situated in Jaura, Pargana Jaura, District Morena from Suresh Chand.
(v) By sale deed dated 29/3/2022, respondent No. 3 has purchased Araji Nos. 149/2, 150 area 0.10 arre, Araji Nos. 149/1, 140 area 0.13 arre situated in village Jaitpur, Pargana Jaura, District Morena from Pappu Gurjar and Naresh Gurjar.
(vi) By sale deed dated 20/1/2022, respondent No. 3 has purchased 0.97 hectare situated in village Jaitpur, Tehsil Jaura, District Morena from Ajay Kushwah.
(vii) By sale deed dated 10/6/2024, respondent No. 3 has purchased 1.25 hectares of land forming part of Khasra No. 248 situated in village Burhawali, Pargana Jaura, District Morena from Jagdish Gurjar.
(viii) By registered sale deed dated 13/07/2021, the respondent No.3 has purchased 139.4 square meter of residential area situated in ward No.36 near Radha High School, Sanjay Colony, Morena from Jaynarayan Singh Tomar.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM7 MCC-2277-2023
(ix) by registered sale deed dated 9/2/2022, the respondent No.3 has purchased Khasra number 155/1, 155/2, 210 area 0.97 arre situated in village Jaitpur, Pargana Jaura, District Morena from Gyan Singh, Amit Kushwaha, Bhanu Kushwaha, and Longshri Kushwaha.
All these properties were deliberately not disclosed by respondent No.3 and even the application was filed stating that the other details will be disclosed within two days. On the contrary, the respondent No.3 was in possession of all the sale deeds (may be some of them) and had already forwarded to his counsel. Furthermore, counsel for the respondent No.3, namely Shri Sandeep Nirankari, initially suppressed this fact, but later on, Shri Rohit Jagwani on his own pointed out the said fact. Since the disclosure of the aforementioned sale deeds executed in favor of the respondent No.3 by his counsel was a voluntary act, therefore, it is clear that no malice can be attributed to Shri Rohit Jagwani but one thing is clear, that Shri Sandeep Nirankari did not disclose this. Therefore, the conduct of Shri Sandeep Nirankari, Advocate, in deliberately filing false reply is deprecated.
13. All the sale deeds, the printouts of which have been provided by Shri Rohit Jagwani, are taken on record.
14. Thus, it is clear that respondent Nos.2 & 3 not only did not file their reply and not only did not appear before this Court on 23/3/2026, with a solitary intention to get the matter adjourned by hook and crook, but still they did not show any repentance for what they had done and still they were trying to play fraud on the Court.
15. Under these circumstances, the defence taken by respondents No.2 & 3 that they had bonafidely purchased the property because it was never disclosed by the respondent No.1 that there is a stay, is nothing but an afterthought.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM8 MCC-2277-2023
16. Accordingly, defence taken by the respondents No.2 & 3 that they were bonafide purchasers cannot be accepted. Above all, if respondent Nos.2 and 3 were bonafide purchasers and they had come to know that there was already a stay and the respondent No.1 by playing fraud on them had sold the property to them, then in the reply itself, they should have expressed their willingness to execute a deed of cancellation, but no such averment has been made by the respondents No.2 & 3 in their reply. Therefore, it is clear that by taking a false stand that they were not aware of the stay order, they have purchased the property, everytime they were trying to play fraud on the Court.
17. Accordingly, the defence taken by the respondents No.2 & 3 that they were the bonafide purchasers is hereby rejected.
18. Since respondents No.2 & 3 had purchased the property during the currency of the injunction order, therefore it is held that they have violated the temporary injunction order dated 9/12/2015 and, accordingly, they are held guilty. Accordingly, the sale deeds dated 25-3-2023 executed by respondent no. 1 in favor of respondents no. 2 and 3 respectively are declared non-est. The collector, Gwalior is directed to cancel the mutation order, if any passed on the basis of aforesaid two sale deeds and to restore status quo ante.
19. Thus, the respondents no.2 and 3 are also held guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order dated 9-12-2015.
20. Respondents Nos.1,2 & 3 are heard on the question of sentence.
20. By order dated 23/3/2026, respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 were directed to file the details of their property and accordingly, respondent No.1 filed I.A. No.3368/2026 pointing out the details of total seven properties. In the first half of the day, an objection was raised by counsel for applicant that respondent No.1 has deliberately included the property mentioned at Serial No.6 because his sister Smt. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 9 MCC-2277-2023 Mohini Dholakhandi is in possession of the same and a litigation is going on between the respondent No.1 and Smt. Mohini Dholakhandi, and an application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the respondent No.1 has already been rejected in the said suit. It was also submitted by Shri Sarvesh Sharma that the respondent No.1 has suppressed other properties. Accordingly, Shri Amit Bansal submitted that although the respondent no.1 is having multiple other properties, but since, in order dated 23-3-2026, this Court had directed to give the details of properties situated in Gwalior, therefore, he has consciously not disclosed the additional properties and prayed for some time to file a supplementary application pointing out the details of other properties. Shri Bansal was directed to read out from order dated 23-3-2016 which gave an impression to him, that respondent no.1 is only required to give the details of properties which are situated in Gwalior and after going through the entire order sheet, it was subimited by shri Amit Bansal, that no such directed as suggested by him, was ever given by this Court. Thereafter, I.A. No.3405/2026 has been filed pointing out the properties which are situated in Faridabad (Haryana), property situated in Gram Dodiyai, Tehsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri, and the property situated in Gram Mikiyasen, Tehsil Janpad Alkheda, District Raniganj (Uttar Pradesh). Thus, it is clear that even the respondent No.1 had tried to suppress the material facts from this Court and only when it was objected by the applicant, the respondent No.1 has come forward with the details of the additional property. It is the case of respondent No.1 that he has one-half share in the property along with the legal representatives of late Hemlata.
21. Be that whatever it may be.
22. It is the stand of the respondents No.2 & 3 that respondent No.1 had not disclosed that there is a stay order in respect of the property in dispute. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 10 MCC-2277-2023 submitted by Shri Amit Bansal that respondent No.1 did not disclose to respondent No.2 regarding the pendency of the second appeal as well as the interim order. Although the contention of Shri Amit Bansal that non-disclosure was not intentional, but the said submission cannot be accepted. In fact, the respondent No.1 has also played fraud on the Court as well as on the respondent No.2 & 3.
23. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Shri Amit Bansal that respondent No.1 is ready to return the consideration amount to the respondents No.2 & 3, and accordingly, disclosed that the respondent No.1 has prepared two cheques of Rs. 16,74,000/- each for the respondents No.2 & 3. In the first half of the day, when the cheques were shown, a question was put to the respondent No.1 as to whether there are sufficient funds in his account or not. He fairly admitted that there is no sufficient fund in his account. Thus, it i is clear that without there bing suffiicient amount in the account, the respondent no. 1, also tried to play fraud on the Court by showing two cheques of bank account, which was not having sufficient funds. Sensing that this Court may take harsh action against him for projecting false facts before this Court, it was submitted by respondent No.1 that he would break his FDR and would transfer the sufficient amount to his account so that the cheques of Rs.16,74,000/- prepared in the name of respondent No.2 & 3 each can be encashed and took some time to transfer the amount from the FDR to his savings bank account.
24. In the second half of the day, respondent No.1 supplied the copy of the statement of transaction in account No. 143801002079 maintained in ICICI Bank, Phoolbagh branch, Gwalior.
25. From the aforesaid statement, it is clear that today the respondent No.1 deposited Rs.5,50,000/-. He got an RTGS of Rs.10 lakh from one Smt. Usha Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 11 MCC-2277-2023 Joshi. An amount of Rs. 2 lakh was got transferred by NEFT. An amount of rupees 4 lakh in cash was deposited by the respondent No.1 and an amount of rupees 6 lakh was transferred from the account of one Chetna Dholakhandi. Thus it is clear that the statement which was made by the respondent No.1 in the first half of the day that he would break his FDRs and would transfer the sufficient amount so that both the cheques can be encashed was also a false statement. It was submitted by respondent No.1 that Uma Joshi is his mother in law whereas Chetna Dhokahandi is the widow of his brother. Thus a total amount of rupees 27,50,000/- was deposited today. From the statement, it is clear that on 15/5/2026, an amount of Rs.7,48,873.40/- was already deposited in the aforesaid account. From this statement, it is clear that at present a total amount of Rs. 34,94,873/- is standing in the aforesaid account.
26. Since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not expressed their willingness to execute a deed of cancellation, therefore, the cheques which were shown to the Court by respondent No.1 cannot be accepted and, accordingly, they are returned. However, it is directed that respondent No.1, shall maintain the aforesaid amount in the account so that in case if the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ask for cancellation of sale deed, then the amount can be refunded back without any further legal complication. The ICICI Bank, Phool Bagh branch is also directed to maintain the balance of Rs.34,94,873.40 in the account.
27. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that since respondent No.1 had acted in a bonafide manner, therefore, he may not be sent to jail and his property may be attached. It is further submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that besides the properties which have been mentioned in I.A. No. 3368/2026 and I.A. No.3405/2026, there is no other property standing in the name of respondent No.1.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM12 MCC-2277-2023
28. Generally, this Court, after attaching the properties of the wrongdoer, do not send them to civil jail for a period of three months. But this Court has already dealt with the conduct of respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 in making every effort to play fraud on the Court by suppressing vital information. Even respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had tried their level best to get the proceedings adjourned by remaining absent on 23/3/2026 under a hope and belief that this Court would issue SPC to them.
29 Since respondent No.1 had played fraud not only on respondent Nos.2 and 3, but he also suppressed certain properties in his I.A. No. 3368/2026 and only on the objection raised by the applicant, he came up with another application (I.A. No.3405/2026) pointing out the other properties, as well as he tried to project his bonafide by showing two cheques of Rs. 16,74,000/- for respondent no. 2 and 3 knowing fully well that he doesnot have sufficient funds in his account, therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that apart from attaching his properties mentioned in I.A. No. 3368/2026 and I.A. No. 3405/2026, he is also liable to be sent to civil jail for a period of three months.
30. So far as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, their conduct has already been dealt with in detail. Therefore, they are also not entitled for any mercy or sympathetic view from this Court. Accordingly, apart from attaching their properties mentioned in I.A. No. 3383/2026 as well as attaching the properties which were purchased by respondent No.3, and the photocopy of the sale deeds of which have already been supplied and have been taken note of by this Court in the previous paragraphs, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also liable to be sent to civil jail for a period of three months.
31. Therefore, in view of the conduct of respondent Nos 1 to 3, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM 13 MCC-2277-2023 unconditional apology submitted by them cannot be accepted and it is accordingly rejected. Thus, the properties of respondents no. 1,2 and 3 are hereby attached for a period of one year. The Tahsildar of the locality where the properties are situated, are appointed as receiver and the respondents no. 1 to 3 are directed to handover the possession of all the properties which have been attached without any resistence. Although respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are present in the Court and this Court could have taken them in custody, but since it is already 5.20 PM and the Jail may not admit them after the sunset, therefore, they are directed to surrender before CJM, Gwalior by tomorrow for undergoing the civil imprisonment for three months. The applicant is also directed to deposit requisite expenses for sending the respondents no. 1 to 3 to civil jail. Expenses may be deposited with the jail authorities after obtaining receipt of the same.
32. It is made clear that property No.6 which is mentioned in I.A. No. 3368 of 2026 shall remain free from attachment because it is not in the possession of respondent No.1 but is in possession of his sister Smt. Mohini Dholakhandi. Accordingly, these proceedings are disposed of in relation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. I.A. No. 3349/2026 has been filed for recall of order dated 23/3/2026 in respect of respondent No.4.
33. Shri Sunil Jain, counsel for respondent No.4, prays for and is granted a week's time to file reply of this I.A..
34. Accordingly, at the request of Shri Sunil Jain, list this case on 18th of April 2026 for consideration of I.A. No. 3349 of 2026.
35. It is made clear that these proceedings shall remain pending only in respect of respondent No.4 and so far as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they are finally disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM14 MCC-2277-2023
38. Since it is already 5.20 PM and some time would be required to get the order typed, therefore, Principal Registrar of this Court was verbally communicated to release respondent No.2 on bail.
39. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to execute the deed of cancellation. Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount which he has received from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and expenses for execution of cancellation deed shall be borne by respondent No.1.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Durgekar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 4/15/2026 8:46:12 PM