The court upheld that unauthenticated documents cannot substantiate property claims and emphasized the need for maintaining status quo in disputes to protect existing rights.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI nd ON THE 22 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4585 of 2024 MEHROON BEE AND OTHERS Versus SHAKEELA BEE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sunil Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Hariom Patidar, learned counsel for the respondents.

ORDER The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , th challenging the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by 12 Civil Judge, Class II, Indore in RCA No.99/2024 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners was allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.04.2024 passed by 13th Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Indore and the defendants/petitioners were directed to maintain status quo of the suit property till the final decision of the trial.

2. By the order dated, the trial court has rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 09.07.2024 and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo of the suit property. Against the said order petitioners/defendants have preferred the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI appellate Court has committed illegality by allowing the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and directing the petitioners/defendants to maintain the status-quo of the suit property till the final decision of the trial. Counsel submitted that the petitioners and respondents have equal share in the disputed property. The petitioners were in residing the suit property and as the suit property was in dilapidated condition, the petitioners/defendants were carrying out construction work. The respondents/plaintiffs went to claim their share, on the ground that the aforesaid construction would change the form of the disputed property. At that time the petitioners/defendants threatened of dire consequences if the respondents/plaintiffs again claim their share in the suit property.

4. Counsel further submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs did not present any important documents separately before the trail Court and have furnished forged documents along with application under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC in respect of compromise. The petitioners/defendants were not granted adequate opportunity to place their defence against the aforesaid application and on the basis of the forged documents submitted by the respondents/plaintiffs the appellate Court has passed the impugned order. There is no prima facie case in favour of the respondents nor balance of convenience, or point of imminent injury, in spite of that the appellate Court has committed grave error in passing the order in favour of the respondent. Hence counsel prayed that the impugned order of the appellate Court be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs vehemently opposed the prayer that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed land since 12.04.1973 whereas the petitioners/defendants have not title or right over the suit land. The petitioner/defendants were carrying out the construction work without the prior permission of the respondents/plaintiffs, in order to encroach the same.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI If the petitioners are allowed to reconstruct the suit property, then it would cause irreparable loss to the respondents. The order of the appellate Court does not call for any interference, therefore, counsel prayed that the present petition be dismissed by affirming the order of the trial Court.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I have perused the record.

7. Upon perusal of the record, it is evi