IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 15 OF MAY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 2122 of 2025 SMT.MEERA FARKARE Versus ALKESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate the petitioner.

Shri Gyanendra Singh Baghel - Advocate for respondents/Caveators.

ORDER Assailing the order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P/14) passed by the 5th District Judge, Chhindwara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.14/2025 whereby the interim order dated 13.01.2025 granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by the trial court has been set aside, the present petition is filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit to declare the Will dated 06.02.2018 as null and void and for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and the trial court has granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff restraining the respondent Nos.1 & 2 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Against which, the respondent No.1 & 2 filed a Misc. Civil Appeal No.14 of 2025 before the 5th District Judge, Chhindwara and the appellate court without considering the documents and facts of the case passed the impugned order 29.03.2025 and has directed the petitioner not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the respondent Nos.1 & 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 & 2 hand in gloves with Secretary Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL Gram Panchayat obtained a false and forged death certificate and encroached over the property of the petitioner/plaintiff. On the basis of forged Will dated 06.02.2018, the respondent No.1 & 2 got mutated their names in the revenue records and have taken possession of the disputed land forcefully. The petitioner is legal heir of her husband.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants on caveat has vehemently opposed the contentions pointing out the fact that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the property in dispute and therefore, the learned appellate court considering balance of convenience in favour of the respondents/defendants has set aside the order passed by the trial court and granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents/defendants directed the petitioner/plaintiff not to interfere with the possession of the defendants/respondents. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the record, it is clear the petitioner/plaintiff himself has filed a spot inspection report dated 29.08.2024 to the effect that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the disputed property. There are no material on record to show that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments has fairly admitted the fact that the respondents/defendants have taken away possession of the property in question. Once the factum of possession of property in question being with the defendants, is accepted by the petitioner/plaintiff, no case is made out for interference in a well reasoned order passed by the appellate court as the same does not fulfill the criteria as provided Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL under Order 39 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Even otherwise, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction and limited scope of interference as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein certain guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court, which are as under:-

"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no ju