ORDER :

ALOK AWASTHI, J.

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.11.2025, th passed in M.C.A. No. 42 of 2024 by learned VI District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 13.09.2025 passed in th RCS No. 145 of 2025 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shujalpur, District Shajapur whereby the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been partly allowed, has been reversed and order for temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/petitioners has been set aside.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that, the petitioners are bhoomi swamis of the land admeasuring 100 X 100 sq.ft. forming part of Survey No. 1253, situated at Village Behrawal, Tehsil Kalapipal, District Shajapur (M.P.) which was allotted to their father by the State Government on 15.10.1983 under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Gramo Me Ki Pakhalrahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1970. Since allotment, the Petitioners have been in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession, regularly paying land revenue and other government dues. On 15.07.2025, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shajapur, addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shajapur, and the Tehsildar, Kalapipal, alleging illegal possession by the Petitioners over Survey No. 1253/2. Acting thereon, the Tehsildar, without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, issued a direction on 18.07.2025 requiring the Petitioners to vacate the land, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. RCS- A/145/2025 for permanent injunction on 26.07.2025, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94 CPC seeking interim protection against dispossession and interference. The application was allowed by the Trial Court on 13.09.2025. The respondents preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, registered as MCA No. 42/2025, which was partly allowed by order dated 28.11.2025. While the injunction was affirmed, the Appellate Court made an extraneous observation that the order would not affect construction over alleged Government land bearing Survey No. 1253/2, an issue neither pleaded, argued, nor forming part of the suit or appeal, thereby causing serious prejudice to the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said impugned observation contained in the order dated 28.11.2025, the present petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is against the settled principle of law. The petitioner is in continuous possession of the suit last since 1983. The Appellate Court travelled beyond the pleadings relief and issues by referring to a Government Survey number that is not part of the suit, and was never raised by respondents in their appeal. The suit and injunction application pertained only to the Petitioners’ Survey Number, as recorded in the plaint and revenue records. The Trial Court passed a clear injunction over the suit property alone. The observation of the Appellate Court, unnecessarily casts doubt on the injunction's effect and alters the nature of the order without jurisdiction. There is no material on record to show that petitioners’ land overlaps with Government land. The Appellate Court, while affirming the injunction, added an observation which changes the character of the operative order. Appellate Court cannot modify or restrict relief beyond what is claimed or adjudicated, especially in the absence of any such challenge in the memorandum of appeal. Learned Appellate Court erred in partially reversing the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court, which had correctly appreciated the evi