2025:CGHC:22984 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 469 of 2025

1 - Poonam Shukla W/o Late Santosh Kumar Shukla Aged About 45 Years R/o Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Rahul Shukla S/o Manoj Kumar Shukla Aged About 40 Years R/o- Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) At Present R/o- Q.

No. 303, Rajendra Bhawan, Ntpc Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur (Bihar)

---- Respondent(s)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

Order on Board

11.06.2025

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing registration of MJC No. 150/2019 against the petitioner on the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of the Civil Procedure for violation of interim injunction passed by the trial Court on 01.10.2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2009 whereby direction for maintenance of status quo was given.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No. 27-A/2009 for declaration of title of suit property described in Schedule-B of the plaint and partition of the suit property to the extent of ¼^th separate share. The plaintiff has also filed an application for injunction against the defendant and the learned trial Court vide its order dated 01.10.2009 has ordered for maintaining the status quo with regard to the suit property. Thereafter, it has been alleged that the defendant has started construction over the suit property, as such, application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed on 16.10.2019. The record of the case further demonstrates that the said civil suit was dismissed on 31.10.2019.

3. From perusal of the order-sheets it is quite vivid that the plaintiff has been examined before the trial Court on 12.12.2024 by way of an affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC in the proceedings initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC but the cross- examination could not be done, as such the matter was fixed for cross-examination of plaintiff on 26.02.2025, 27.02.2025, 03.04.2025, 04.04.2025 and thereafter the matter was again fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff on 07.05.2025, thereafter, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition on 08.05.2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the registration of Miscellaneous Judicial Case against them for breach of injunction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not disturbed the status quo order passed by the trial Court and since Civil Suit No. 103A/2011 has been dismissed on 31.10.2019 by the trial Court, as such, the interim order passed by the Court has lost its significance, therefore, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. To substantiate his submission he would refer to judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Neelam Gupta and Others vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Others {Civil Appeal No. 3159-3160 of 2019 decided on 14.10.2024}, Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi {2012 (4) SCC 307} and Food Corporation of India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad {2009 (5) SCC 665} and would submit that the proceeding drawn by the learned trial Court is without jurisdiction and would pray for quashment of the entire proceedings.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

6. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the documents annexed with the writ petition, the point emerged for determination is ‘whether the application for breach of injunction is not sustainable in view of subsequent dismissal of the suit?’

7. For proper adjudication of the i