Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL ON THE 21st OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 1492 of 2017 BETWEEN:- 1. DINESH KUMAR S/O LAT SANTOSH MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WARD NO. 19 , BUDHAR ROAD, (NEAR SURYA HOTEL) SHAHDOL P.S SHAHDOL THE. SUHAGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAHUL MISHRA S/O LATE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA WARD NO 19 BUDHAR ROAD NEAR SURYA HOTEL SHAHDOL PS SHAHDOL TEHSIL SUHAGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHUBHAM RAI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PRADEEP MISHRA S/O LATE SANTOSH MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WARD NO. 19 BUDHAR ROAD, (NEAR SURYA HOTEL) SHAHDOL P.S AND P.S SHAHDOL TEH. SUHAGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NILESH MISHRA S/O LATE SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WARD NO 19 BUDHAR ROAD NEAR SURYA HOTEL SHAHDOL PS SHAHDOL TEHSIL SUHAGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUNIL MISHRA S/O LATE SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WARD NO 19 BUDHAR ROAD NEAR SURYA HOTEL SHAHDOL PS SHAHDOL TEHSIL SUHAGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATE OF MP COLLECTOR SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
(STATE BY SHRI ATUL DWIVEDI, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
Rahul Diwaker,Advocate General
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved of order dated 5.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Shahdol in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.22/2017 reaffirming the order dated 13.7.2017 passed by learned III Civil Judge Class-II, Shahdol in Regular Civil Suit No.1300055A/2016 rejecting the prayer for grant of injunction on the ground that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and declaration and if a co- sharer constructs any portion then that will cause problem in future.
However, the learned Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Shahdol has observed that the injunction is not maintainable against the co-sharer as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Narendra Kante versus Anuradha Kante & Others 2010 (1) M.P.J.R SC 224 so also the law laid down by Division Bench of this High Court in Surendra Rathore versus Vishwanath Bhasin & Another 2009 (3)
M.P.H.T 60 (DB).
No other material is brought on record to show that the injunction is maintainable against a co-sharer. In absence of such material on record that the injunction is admissible even against a co-sharer, I find no illegality in the impugned orders calling for interference by this Court in this Miscellenous Petition.
Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
