Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Pranay Verma, J.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Chanchal Jadon D/o Late Senpal Singh - Respondent
Misc. Petition No. 1824 of 2024
Decided On : 05-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2024 passed in MCA No.3/2024 by the Second District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur reversing the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in RCS No.10-A/2024 by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shujalpur, District Shajapur and allowing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC preferred by the plaintiff/respondent.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 15.01.2024 the plaintiff instituted an action before the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing her from the suit shop, from causing any damage to it or from interfering with her possession over the same. She submitted that the defendant had constructed 27 shops in front of its school ground and had auctioned the same in which one shop measuring 5 x 3 square meter was allotted to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3,96,000/- on rent at Rs.1,026/- per month. The shop of plaintiff is bearing No.7/1. The tenancy of the suit shop has been renewed from time to time lastly on 15.01.2022 for a period of 35 months expiring on 15.09.2025. The plaintiff has not violated any of the terms of the tenancy and is carrying on her business therefrom. The defendant is however making efforts for constructing a C.M. Rise School and has issued a notice dated 30.12.2023 to plaintiff to vacate the suit shop. The same is wholly illegal and plaintiff is not liable to vacate the suit shop.
3. Along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing her from the suit shop, from causing any damage to the same and from forcibly dispossessing her therefrom. The defendant filed its reply to the application submitting that in the school premises wherein the suit shop is situated, construction of the school at the cost of Rs.44.33 Crores is being done for which the suit shop is needed. For the construction, in a meeting held on 26.12.2024 by the Sub Divisional Officer it has been decided that a road has to be constructed from the land over which the suit shop is situated as per the sanctioned map. The number of students in the school has increased from 1888 to about 4000-5000 and the same is running in two shifts hence it has been decided that the school be reconstructed. Presently there are three gates for entry to the school in place of which one big gate is proposed to be constructed. The shop of plaintiff is required for the said purpose hence plaintiff is not entitled for issuance of temporary injunction.
4. By order dated 14.02.2024 the trial Court rejected plaintiff's application for issuance of temporary injunction holding that from the documents filed by the plaintiff it appears that the suit shop has been constructed over land of a passage, that defendant is constructing a building of C.M. Rise School in the premises which is an infrastructure project hence it would not be expedient to issue temporary injunction in view of the provisions of Section 41 (ha) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
5. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. Prior to filing of the said appeal the suit shop was demolished by the defendant. By the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 the appellate Court has held that plaintiff was in possession of the suit shop on the date of suit which has been demolished by the defendant during its pendency, that plaintiff had not violated any terms and conditions of the tenancy, that the suit shop was not on any land for a road or passage, that in the map produced by the defendant it has not been shown that the gate of the school is to be built over the land over which the suit shop is situated, that tenancy of plaintiff was valid upto 15.09.2025 hence defendant could not ha
AI
Tenants cannot be forcibly dispossessed without legal grounds, and tenancy agreements must be upheld, as reaffirmed by the court.
Clear evidence of an existing injunction is necessary for contempt proceedings; mere assumptions or vague terms do not suffice.
The need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellate court upheld that the plaintiff lacked a right of access to the northern side of her shop, as the land was classified as parti and not appurtenant to her property.
Quasi-criminal proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC require proof beyond doubt of willful injunction disobedience; appellate courts cannot reverse trial credibility findings absent perversity, esp....
A suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without a declaration of ownership, especially when the plaintiff admits that part of the property is in the possession of the defendants.
Mandatory injunctions require clear evidence of possession rights; mere claims of permissive possession undermined by admissions establishing tenant status.
A family member of a tenant cannot claim legal rights to property or file for an injunction without asserting ownership or interest, demonstrating a lack of enforceable obligation under the law.
Permanent injunction – A person cannot have benefit of protection order from Court when he has failed to prima facie establish his right to remain in possession of property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
