BABULAL v. MATHURALAL
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-01-05. BABULAL v. MATHURALAL. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 5 OF JANUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 879 of 2015 BETWEEN:- 1. BABULAL S/O SHRI MULLA, AGED-75 YEARS, R/O PATHAR MOHALLA GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. BAHGWANLAL S/O SHRI BABULAL KUSHWAH, AGED-45 YEARS, R/O PATHAR MOHALLA, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. ROOP SINGH S/O SHRI BABULAL KUSHWAH, AGED-42 YEARS, R/O PATHAR MOHALLA, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. GOPAL S/O SHRI BABULAL KUSHWAH, AGED-39 YEARS, R/O PATHAR MOHALLA, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) 5. LAXMAN S/O SHRI BABULAL KUSHWAH, AGED-30 Y E A R S , PATHAR MOHALLA, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI YOGESH SINGHAL- ADVOCATE ) AND MATHURALAL S/O SHRI MULLA, AGED-65 YEARS, R/O PATHAR MOHALLA GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....
RESPONDENT (BY SHRI RISHIKESH BOHRE- ADVOCATE ) This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 06-Jan-24 2:17:57 PM been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 17. 07. 2014 passed by learned Trial Court, whereby an application preferred by respondent/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2 (a) of the CPC has been allowed and the petitioners/defendants were held to be guilty of breach of injunction and willful disobedience of the order dated 05. 09. 2012 passed by the Trial Court and, therefore, the petitioners were directed to be kept in Civil prison for the period of one month. Petitioners had assailed the aforesaid order in appeal, but the appellate Court vide order dated 09. 01. 2015 had dismissed the said appeal and had affirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 2 (a) of CPC dated 17. 07. 2014 is per se illegal as it was dehors the pleadings of the respondent/plaintiff and, therefore, was not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was further contended that from the bare allegations made by the respondent/plaintiff, it would be evident that the allegations were regarding flouting of order of injunction dated 05. 09. 2012, whereby they were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff by themselves or by any other means, but on 16. 10. 2012 petitioner no.
1 to 5 armed with deadly weapons (axe, farsa, talwar, and lathi) and along with female members of their family entered the fields ( land in dispute) and had severed Soyabean crop standing and when the son of the plaintiff Gendalal, Mohana and Lalu tried to stop them they hurled filthy abuses and were ready to fight. In furtherance of his arguments it was contended that in the complaint, it Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 06-Jan-24 2:17:57 PM was further averred that when the respondent/plaintiff tried to show the order of the Trial Court, the petitioners refused to accept it and tried to assault them and somehow the plaintiff and his family members escaped and, thereafter, in total derogation of the very order of injunction, the petitioners severed 60 quintals of Soyabean by means of a threasher of Gajraj Singh, looted it and went away and though the plaintiff tried to report the matter to the police, the report was not written and on 20. 10.
2012 the petitioners again came to the disputed land and started ploughing the field and when the plaintiff tried to stop them, he was threatened for life, thus, since the petitioner in the aforesaid manner had flouted the order of injunction, the application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) was filed, which goes to show that there was no question of possession being taken by the petitioners and, therefore, the learned Trial Court on a wrong assumption that the petitioners have forcibly taken possession of the land in dispute, had passed the impugned order which is per se illegal. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court in paragraph 9 has categorically held that the factum of loot of the Soyabean crop has not been established beyond doubt against the petitioners, which was the basic allegation of flouting the interim injunction order and when the said allegation itself was not held to be proved, the order dated 17. 07. 2014 is bad in law.
It was lastly contended that aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the learned Appellate Court and had dismissed the appeal in a routine manner and had upheld the order passed by the learned Trial Court which also deserves to be set aside. Shri Rishikesh Bohre appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that no interference is warranted in the present petition as two fact finding courts Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 06-Jan-24 2:17:57 PM have given concurrent findings against the petitioners regarding flouting of the interim injunction order dated 05. 09. 2012. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the present petition. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the impugned orders, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court as well as the appellate authority had not considered the allegations made by the respondent/plaintiff in his application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) in its right perspective.
The relevant extract of the allegations as mentioned in the application against the petitioner of flouting the interim injunction order is reproduced herein below: 5 . ;g fd vkosnd dh mDr lks;kchu dh Qly id dj rS;kj gksus ij fnukad 16-10-12 eaxyokj dqaokj lqnh ,de dks vukosnd dzekad 1 yxk;r 5 ckcwyky vkSj mlds yMds Hkxoku flag] :iflag] xksiky] ,oa y{ke. k us fnu ds 10 cts ? kkrd gfFk;kjksa dqYgkMh] Q'kZk] ryokj] ykBh ysdj efgykvksa ds lkFk mDr Hkwfe ds [ksr esa ? kqldj lks;kchu dkVuk 'kq: fd;k rc vkosnd us vius iq= xsankyky] eksguk rFkk yYyw ds lkFk [ksr ij tkdj vukosndx. k dks lks;kchu dkVus ls euk fd;kA rc vukosndx. k us vkosnd dks v'yhy ekW&cgu dh xanh xkfy;kWa nh vkSj yMus >xMus rS;kj gks x, rc vkosnd us U;k;ky; Jheku ds vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vkns'k] LVs&vkWMZj fnukad 5-9-12 dks vukosndx. k dks fn[kk;k rc vukosndx.
k us vkosnd dks v'yhy ekW&cgu dh xanh xkfy;kW nsrs gq, dgk fd ,sls vnkyrksa ds LVs&vkWMZj geus dbZ ns[ks gSa vkSj ge LVs&vkWMZj ugha ekurs gekjs gfFk;kjksa esa vkSj ge esa rkdr gS blfy, ge lks;kchu dkV dj ys tk,xsa Hkys gh gesa vnkyr ls ltk gks tk,A vukosnd dzekad 1 ckcwyky us vius yMdksa Hkxoku flga cxSjg ls dgk fd bUgsa tku ls ekj nks vkSj ltk gksxh mls esa Hkqxr ywWaxk rc vukosnd dzekad 1 yxk;r 5 ? kkrd gfFk;kj ysdj vkosnd vkSj mlds yMdksa dks ekjus nkSMs rc vkosnd vkSj mlds yMdksa us Hkkx dj tku cpkbZA 6- ;g fd vukosnd dzekad 1 yxk;r 5 us U;k;ky; ds LVs&vkWMZj dks Hkax djds tcj&tLrh rkdr ds Hkj fookfnr Hkwfe esa [kMh lks;kchu dh Qly tks djhc 7 DoaVy lks;kchu fudyk gS vkSj 21 gtkj :i; ewY; dh gS mls pksjh djds xtjkt flag iq= /kUukyky dq'kokg iou dkWyksuh iBkj eksgYyk xquk ds Fkzslj ls mDr lks;kchu Qly fudyokdj ys x, gSaA 7- ;g fd vkosnd us mDr ? kVuk dh fjiksVZ djds fnukad 16-10- 12 dks iqfyl dksrokyh dsUV xquk dks ?
kVuk dk gky crk;k rFkk fjiksVZ ntZ djus dk fuosnu fd;k ysfdu iqfyl us fjiksVZ ntZ ugha dh vkSj ;g dgdj Hkxk fn;k fd rqEgkjk vnkyr esa eqdnek py Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 06-Jan-24 2:17:57 PM jgk gS blfy, ogha dk;Zokgh djksA 8- ;g fd vkosnd dh mDr fookfnr Hkwfe esa vukosnd dzekad 1 yxk;r 5 us iqu% fnukad 20-10-12 'kfuokj dks fouksn iq= jkedqekj 'kekZ ckMbZ fuoklh pkWan'kkgoyh xquk dk VzsDVj ys tk dj vkSj [ksr esa ?
kqldj gkdkbZ tqrkbZ djus yxs vkSj vkosnd ds [ksr dh ckxM rksM nhA tc vkosnd euk djus igqWapk rks yMus&>xMus rS;kj gks x, vkSj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA bldh fjiksVZ djus Hkh vkosnd fnukad 20-10-12 dks iqfyl dksrokyh x;k ysfdu iqfyl us fjiksVZ ntZ ugha dh vkSj vnkyr esa dk;Zokgh djus dk dg dj Hkxk fn;kA vr% fuosnu gS fd vkosnd dh xzke xquk igkuk 75 rglhy xquk esa fLFkr Hkwfe losZ ua- 800 feu 2 esa ls jdok 0-335 gs- ij U;k;ky; Jheku ds vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vkns'k fnukad 05-09-12 dk Hkax djus vkSj tcjtLrh rkdr ds cy mDr Hkwfe esa [kMh vkosnd dh 21 gtkj :i; dh lks;kchu dh Qly fnukad 16-10-12 dks dkVdj ys tkus rFkk iqu% fnukad 20-10-12 dks LVsvkWMZj dk mYya? ku dj fookfnr Hkwfe esa VzsDVj ls gdkbZ tqrkbZ djus vkSj esM rksMus dk vukosnd dzekad 1 yxk;r 5 dks mfpr o f'k{kk izn n. M fn;k tkosA From the aforesaid allegations it would be evident that on 16. 10.
2012 the petitioners are stated to have entered the fields (land in dispute) of the respondent/plaintiff and had harvested/severed the Soyabean crop standing and had threatened plaintiff and his family members and had forcibly taken the crop. There is no allegation of taking the forcible possession of the said land. Learned Trial Court in paragraph 9 has categorically held that so far as the loot of the Soyabean crop by the petitioners is concerned, it was not established, but on the basis that the petitioners have taken forcible possession of the land in question, it was held that the petitioners have flouted the interim injunction order dated 05. 09. 2012 which appears to be beyond the pleadings and completely illegal. It further observed by this Court that this aspect has also not been considered by the appellate Court. Both the orders, therefore, appears to be perverse and per se illegal, accordingly, are hereby set aside. The petition is allowed to the above extent.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 06-Jan-24 2:17:57 PM (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI Signing time: 06-Jan-24 2:17:57 PM
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.