Madhya Pradesh High Court
Punit Tiwari vs Atar Singh on 17 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560
1 MCC-3865-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 3865 of 2025
PUNIT TIWARI
Versus
ATAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Vineet Saxena - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 7.
ORDER
This application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has been filed complaining breach of temporary injunction order dated 08/12/2023, passed in F.A. No. 1815/2022, by which both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property till next date of hearing.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since parties were to maintain status quo regarding the suit property, therefore, even alienation could not have been done. However, Respondent No. 1, by registered sale deed dated 02/07/2025, has sold a part of disputed property Khasra No. 748/808/2, situated in village Salaiya, Tehsil Dabra, District Gwalior, to Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have sold Khasra No. 682 situated in village Salaiya, Tehsil Dabra, District Gwalior to Respondent No. 3, who is a minor aged about 8 years, through his mother Rama. Thus, it is submitted that respondents have Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560 2 MCC-3865-2025 committed breach of temporary injunction order dated 08/12/2023.
3. Respondent No. 1 has filed his reply and submitted that although he had engaged his counsel, but interim order dated 08/12/2023 was passed in absence of his counsel. Further, his counsel never communicated to Respondent No. 1 about the interim order. Respondent No. 1 came to know about the interim order only after the receipt of notice of these proceedings. It is submitted that the transaction was entered into under a genuine belief that no legal impediment is in existence. It is further submitted that in order to show his bonafide intentions, Respondent No. 1 is ready to execute a deed of cancellation after returning the entire consideration amount received from purchasers. So far as sale deed executed by Respondent No. 1 in favor of Respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is submitted that by said sale deed, Khasra No. 682, situated in village Salaiya, Tehsil Dabra, District Gwalior, has been sold whereas said property is not the subject matter of dispute. Accordingly, it is submitted that no order was violated by Respondent No. 1 by alienating the property in favor of Respondent No. 3.
4. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 7 submitted that Respondent Nos. 2 and 7 were not aware of the interim injunction order, and since it was misrepresented by Respondent No. 1 that there is no stay in the matter, therefore, the land was purchased.
5. In reply, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that defense taken by respondents with regard to ignorance of the interim order is false. Respondent Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 7 are real brothers of Respondent No. 1, whereas Respondent No. 4 is closely related to Respondent No. 1. Similarly, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560 3 MCC-3865-2025 Respondent No. 3 is the minor son of Respondent No. 1.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. From the record of F.A. No. 1815/2022, it is clear that Respondent No. 1 had filed his Vakalatnama on 27/01/2023 engaging Shri Vineet Saxena, Advocate, as one of his counsel. On 08/12/2023, none had appeared for Respondent No. 3, and accordingly, appeal was admitted, and an interim injunction order was passed. Shri Vineet Saxena, who is appearing for Respondent No. 1 in the present case also, submitted that counsel for Respondent No. 1 never communicated to Respondent No. 1 about the temporary injunction order. He further stated that it was the fault on the part of counsel for Respondent No. 1 in not appearing before the Court on 08/12/2023 in F.A. No. 1815/2022. When Shri Vineet Saxena was reminded of the fact that he himself is the counsel for Respondent No. 1 in F.A. No. 1815/2022, therefore, he is alleging against himself, then he withdrew the aforesaid submissions.
8. Thus, it is clear that Respondent No. 1 was duly represented. If his counsel decided not to appear on 08/12/2023, then Respondent No. 1 cannot plead ignorance about the temporary injunction order. Apart from that, all the orders of the High Court are being uploaded on the website of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and even if a party or lawyer has failed to appear on a particular day, then by checking the status of the case on the official website, he can easily collect the information about the nature of order passed on the said date.
9. Furthermore, if counsel for Respondent No. 1, i.e., Shri Vineet Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560 4 MCC-3865-2025 Saxena, had ditched Respondent No. 1 by not appearing in F.A. No. 1815/2022 on 08/12/2023 and by not informing him about the passing of injunction order, then Respondent No. 1 would not have engaged Shri Vineet Saxena in these proceedings also. Furthermore, it appears that Shri Vineet Saxena has taken the defense in a very casual manner without understanding the gravity and consequences of such defense.
10. Be that whatever it may be. It is for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Vineet Saxena to introspect, but one thing is clear that Respondent No. 1 was aware of the temporary injunction order. Furthermore, as Respondent No. 1 had filed his Vakalatnama on 27/01/2023, therefore, it is clear that at least he was aware of the pendency of appeal. In the sale deed dated 02/07/2025 executed by Atar Singh in favor of Respondent No. 2, it is merely mentioned that there is no injunction order from any court, but deliberately it was not mentioned that no case is pending in any court of law.
11. Under these circumstances, it is held that Respondent No. 1 has deliberately and consciously executed the sale deed dated 02/07/2025 in favor of Respondent No. 2.
12. So far as the defense taken by Respondent No. 2 that he was not aware of the pendency of First Appeal as well as temporary injunction order is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that he is the real brother of Respondent No. 1 and are the residents of same village. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent No. 1 has deliberately and consciously sold the property to Respondent No. 2, and Respondent No. 2 was well aware of the pendency of appeal as well as injunction order, and in spite of that, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560 5 MCC-3865-2025 purchased the property. Accordingly, it is held that Respondent Nos. 1 and No. 2 are guilty of violating the temporary injunction order dated 08/12/2023.
13. So far as sale deed executed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in favor of Respondent No. 3, who is the minor son of Respondent No. 1, is concerned, applicant has filed a copy of said sale deed along with I.A. No. 3560/2026. According to that sale deed, on 02/07/2025 itself, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 executed a sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 3 in respect of Khasra No. 682 situated in village Salaiya, Tehsil Dabra, District Gwalior. However, after going through the plaint, it is fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that Khasra No. 682 is not the subject matter of suit. Under these circumstances, it is clear that there was no temporary injunction order in respect of Khasra No. 682.
14. Accordingly, sale deed dated 02/07/2025 executed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in favor of Respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be in violation of temporary injunction order dated 08/12/2023. Consequently, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are discharged in respect of sale deed dated 02/07/2025 executed in favor of Respondent No. 3.
15. Since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been held guilty of violating the temporary injunction order dated 08/12/2023, therefore, they were heard on the question of punishment.
16. It is submitted by counsel for Respondent No. 1 that now Respondent No. 1 has realized his mistake and in order to show his bonafides, he is not only ready to execute a deed of cancellation of sale deed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560 6 MCC-3865-2025 dated 02/07/2025 executed by Respondent No. 1 in respect of Khasra No. 748/808/2, but apart from that, he is also ready to deposit a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the Registry of this Court to show that his repentance is not superficial and it is from the bottom of his heart. A similar submission was made by counsel for Respondent No. 2, and it is submitted that Respondent No. 2 is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). However, counsel for applicant seriously objected to aforesaid submissions made by counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and No. 2 and submitted that since Respondent Nos. 1 and No. 2 have consciously disobeyed the order dated 08/12/2023, therefore, not only their entire property should be attached, but they should also be sent to civil jail for a period of three months and applicant is ready and willing to deposit the expenses of civil imprisonment.
17. Heard learned counsel for parties.
18. As already pointed out, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers. It is true that Respondent No. 2 is not a litigant in F.A. No. 1815/2022, but the intention of Respondent No. 1 by alienating the property to Respondent No. 2 might be to create a new interest in order to complicate the litigation which is already going on. However, one thing is clear that property has not gone out of the family, and even Respondent No. 2 is also the resident of same village.
19. Under these circumstances, submission made by counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are ready and willing to deposit a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- + 50,000/- in the Registry of this Court to show that their repentance is bonafide and not superficial appears to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560 7 MCC-3865-2025 justified.
20. Accordingly, it is directed that on depositing a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- by Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 50,000/- by Respondent No. 2 in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today and on executing the deed of cancellation in respect of sale deed dated 02/07/2025 executed in favor of Respondent No. 2 in respect of Khasra No. 748/808/2, no punishment will be required to be imposed as provided under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.
21. Accordingly, it is directed that Respondent No. 1 shall not only deposit the cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the Registry of this Court, but shall also refund the consideration amount by his cheque to Respondent No. 2 and shall also get the cancellation deed executed at his own expenses within a period of one month from today.
22. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to file the copy of cancellation deed before the Principal Registrar of this Court on or before 15/05/2026.
23. It is directed that in case if the cost is not deposited or the cancellation deed is not submitted, then the Principal Registrar of this Court shall list this case for hearing on the question of punishment.
24. It is made clear that even otherwise, from today onwards, sale deed dated 02/07/2025 executed in favor of Respondent No. 2 in respect of Khasra No. 748/808/2 shall be treated as non-est, and Collector, Gwalior is directed to ensure that if any new mutation has taken place on the basis of sale deed dated 02/07/2025 in respect of Khasra No. 748/808/2, then the same is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12560 8 MCC-3865-2025 reversed and the status quo , which was prevailing prior to execution of sale deed dated 02/07/2025 is restored.
25. Let the needful be done within a period of one month from today.
26. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Collector, Gwalior for necessary information and compliance.
27. With aforesaid observations, this MCC is finally disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AKS Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 18-04-2026 06:30:57 PM