The main legal point established in the judgment is that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly, and the importance of forming a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff before granting temporary injunction.

ORDER

With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.

1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 26/11/2021 (Annexure-P-4), whereby the Court below in an appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order passed in Civil Suit No.58-A/17 has rejected application of temporary injunction. By the impugned order, appellate Court set aside the order dated 25/10/2021 and allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1, directing that till the decision of the civil suit i.e RCS 58-A/17 the defendants shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the land belonging to survey No.52/1 area ad-measuring 2.839 hectares situated at Gram Chhindwara Savasan Tahsil Athner District Betul.

2. As per the facts of the case, the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) institute a regular Civil Suit bearing No. 58-A/2017 against original defendants no.1 & 2 (who are respondents no.2 & 3 herein), (defendant no.2 i.e. Kishori died later on) and also against other defendants who were later on added as defendants claiming title on the ground of adverse possession over the land bearing survey no.52/1, area ad-measuring 2.839 hectare situated at Gram Chhindwara Savasan, Tahsil Athner District Betul. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was also filed claiming injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

3. It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff has been in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years and cultivating the same. The land was in the name of Laxmi Bai widow of Sakharam. It is also pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff/respondent no.1 earlier also instituted a suit for specific performance of sauda chitthi (agreement to sale) made in favaour of the plaintiff by Laxmi Bai and Kisna (respondent no.2 herein), but Laxmi Bai and her son denied to perform any such agreement to sale and also filed a counter claim, but later on it has been withdrawn.

Consequently, by way of amendment, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant no.1(respondent no.2 herein) executed a sale-deed in favour of defendants no.4 and 5(respondents no.3 & 4 herein) and defendant no.2 had sold 1.296 hectare of land in question to the defendant no.6 (petitioner herein) through registered sale-deed. It is further pleaded that all the sale deeds have been executed without giving possession of the respective land to the respective purchasers, therefore, the same do not affect the rights of the plaintiff. Since respective purchasers were trying to get the possession of land purchased by them, the application for granting temporary injunction against those defendants has been filed before the trial court but that application has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 25/10/2021 (Annexure-P-2).

4 . Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by the trial court on 25/10/2021 before the appellate court which was allowed by order dated 26/11/2021 (Annexure-P-4) granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff setting-aside the order passed by the trial court. The appellate court in its order has observed that the possession over the land in questionprima facie has been substantiated by the plaintiff as sauda chitthi dated 17/06/2003 reveals that the plaintiff was put in possession over the land in question. The proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff in a revenue court by respondents no.3 and 4 under Section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 to take the possession back and according to the appellate Court these facts are sign of possession of the plaintiff over the land in question. The appellate court has passed the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff by setting aside the