logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MPHC 256 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwailor)
Case No : MA No. 10404 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. SHARMA
Parties : Kaptan Singh Versus Shivkumar Sharma & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria, Advocate. For the Respondents: ------
Date of Judgment : 31-12-2025
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC (Civil Procedure Code)

2. Catch Words:
- injunction
- contempt of court
- status quo
- urgent relief
- appeal
- coercive action

3. Summary:
- The Court entertained I.A. No. 9947/2025 for urgent relief during vacation and allowed the application, directing notice issuance upon payment of process fee.
- In I.A. No. 9948/2025, the appellant sought a stay of the contempt order that required refund of consideration within 15 days.
- The appellant argued that the earlier status‑quo order was non‑specific and should be confined to the prayer for temporary injunction under Order 39.
- Citing the Division Bench decision in *Vikram Shrivastava v. Rampur Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd.*, the Court held that a non‑specific status‑quo order cannot be expanded beyond the original prayer.
- Accordingly, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the appellant pending the next hearing.
- The appellant was ordered to deposit the sale amount within two days, and the matter was listed before a Regular Bench for the week commencing 19 January 2026.

4. Conclusion:
Injunction Granted
Judgment :-

Heard on I.A. No. 9947/2025 an application for urgent hearing and urgent relief during vacation. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

On payment of process fee within seven working days, issue notice to the respondents.

Also heard on I.A.No.9948/2025.

Appellant has preferred this present appeal being aggrieved by the order of single Bench of this Court passed on 16.12.2025 in MCC. No.1076/2025, by which the appellant has been held guilty of contempt of Court on account of breach of injunction order.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that single Bench has only granted 15 days' time to refund consideration amount from the date of order and the said period is lapsing today. He further submitted that appellant is ready to deposit the amount, as directed earlier, by today itself. He further submitted that if the operation of impugned order is not stayed, then appellant shall be adversely affected. He also drawn attention of this Court to the relief column of the interlocutory application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC (Annexure A/2) which is quoted herein below:-

          "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the appellants and they be restrained from dispossessing the appellants from the suit property during pendency of this-appeal."

It is further submitted that on 08.7.2011 following order was passed in Second Appeal No.315/2011:-

          "In the meanwhile till the next date of hearing, parties are directed to maintain status quo as exists on today."

It is further submitted that no specific order has been passed on 08.7.2011. Only the parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on that day. It is further submitted that when order of status quo is not specific, then it should be read and construed only in relation to the prayer made by way of applications for temporary injunction and the scope of order of status quo cannot be expanded to the other things beyond the prayer made in the aforesaid applications.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the order of Division Bench in the case of Vikram Shrivastava vs. Rampur Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2023 (3) MPLJ 90 relevant para-7 of which is quoted hereunder:-

          " 7. So far as the argument of learned senior counsel, to the effect that in the light of order of status-quo the respondents were bound not to raise any construction and even to execute the agreement of licence, is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the order of status-quo is not specific, then it should be read and construed only in relation to the prayer made by way of application(s) for temporary injunction and the scope of order of status-quo cannot be expanded to the other things beyond the prayer made in the aforesaid two applications under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code."

It is clear that in application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC (Annexure-C/2) it is mentioned in relief column that respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the appellants and they be restrained from dispossessing the appellants from the suit property during pendency of the appeal.

Looking to prayer made in the said application and considering the same in context of the order of Division Bench in the case of Vikram Shrivastava (supra), it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant till the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, appellant is directed to deposit the sale amount before the Trial Court within a period two days.

List this case before the Regular Bench in the week commencing 19.01.2026.
 
  CDJLawJournal