IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI ON THE 3^rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 937 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

TARUN S/O TULJI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE KHAPA, TEH.ATHNER (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. GOMA S/O MANJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE KHAPA, TEH.ATHNER (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. KISNA S/O LATE SHRI SAKHARAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE-KHAPA, TEHSIL-ATHNER, DISTRICT-

BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. JAIPAL S/O SHRI MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE- KHAPA, TEHSIL-ATHNER, DISTRICT-BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. ANAND S/O SHRI RAMDAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE- SATNER, TEHSIL-ATHNER, DISTRICT-BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. STATE OF M.P. THRPUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT-BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI AKSHAY PAWAR, PANEL LAWYER)

(SHRI RAJNISH KU.PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4)

Reserved on : 03/09/2022 Delivered on : 28/09/2022 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.

By the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 26/11/2021 (Annexure-P-4), whereby the Court below in an appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order passed in Civil Suit No.58-A/17 has rejected application of temporary injunction. By the impugned order, appellate Court set aside the order dated 25/10/2021 and allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1, directing that till the decision of the civil suit i.e RCS 58-A/17 the defendants shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the land belonging to survey No.52/1 area ad-measuring 2.839 hectares situated at Gram Chhindwara Savasan Tahsil Athner District Betul.

2. As per the facts of the case, the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein)

institute a regular Civil Suit bearing No. 58-A/2017 against original defendants no.1 & 2 (who are respondents no.2 & 3 herein), (defendant no.2 i.e. Kishori died later on) and also against other defendants who were later on added as defendants claiming title on the ground of adverse possession over the land bearing survey no.52/1, area ad-measuring 2.839 hectare situated at Gram Chhindwara Savasan, Tahsil Athner District Betul. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was also filed claiming injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

3. It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff has been in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years and cultivating the same. The land Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA was in the name of Laxmi Bai widow of Sakharam. It is also pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff/respondent no.1 earlier also instituted a suit for specific performance of sauda chitthi (agreement to sale) made in favaour of the plaintiff by Laxmi Bai and Kisna (respondent no.2 herein), but Laxmi Bai and her son denied to perform any such agreement to sale and also filed a counter claim, but later on it has been withdrawn.

Consequently, by way of amendment, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant no.1(respondent no.2 herein) executed a sale-deed in favour of defendants no.4 and 5(respondents no.3 & 4 herein) and defendant no.2 had sold 1.296 hectare of land in question to the defendant no.6 (petitioner herein) through registered sale-deed. It is further pleaded that all the sale deeds have been executed without giving possession of the respective land to the respective purchasers, therefore, the same do not affect the rights of the plaintiff. Since respective purchasers were trying to get the possession of land purchased by them, the application fo