IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR MP No. 2691 of 2023 (YOGESH BANSAL AND OTHERS Vs DR. ALOK GUPTA AND OTHERS )

Dated : 24-09-2025 Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Shatru Daman Singh Bhadouriyia- Advocates for petitioner.

Shri Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate with Shri Somyadeep Dwivedi- Advocates for respondent No.1 and 2.

Heard on I.A.No.10727/2025, an application along with an affidavit filed on behalf of respondents for dismissing the present misc. petition. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that present petition has been preferred by petitioners against the order dated 01.04.2023 by which, the trial Court passed an order of injunction (Annexure P-1) under Section 94 r/w 151 of CPC, 1908. Another impugned order dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) is also under challenge in the present petition. It is further submitted that provisions of Section 94 of CPC and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC mandate for granting of injunction. In the impugned order of injunction (Annexure P-1), learned trial Court observed that neither the written statement nor reply to injunction application is filed, therefore, power under Section 94 of CPC is exercised. Subsequently, trial Court passed an order dated 08.09.2023 on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the same is available on record by way of I.A.No.4901/2025. Observing that, order will have no effect on impugned order dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure P-1). He further submitted that against the injunction Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH order, misc.appeal under Order 43 of CPC is maintainable as such misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

Hence, prayed for rejection of this petition by allowing I.A.No.10727/2025.

On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners by filing reply of I.A.No.10727/2025 submitted that present misc.petition is pending consideration since 2023 and earlier, the case was heard by this Court on 01.05.2025, but respondents are trying to linger the case and, therefore, with mala fide intention filed I.A.No.10727/2025. It is submitted that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed under Section 94 of CPC and Annexure P-2 is not a separate order, it is an explanation of said impugned order (Anenxure P-1) and, therefore, this misc. petition is maintainable. Hence, prayed for rejection of I.A.No.10727/2025.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, it is found that impugned order (Annexure P- 1) was passed by the trial Court under Section 94 of CPC and Annexure P-2 is explanation of impugned order (Annexure P-1).

So far as the contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents is that according to Chapter 10 Rule 7 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, separate petition shall be made in regard to distinct subject matters, provided that one petition may be filed challenging more than one order passed in the same case on the same day, with the leave of the Court and subject to the law related to Court fees. Further contention of respondents is that one petition may be filed challenging more than one order passed in the same case on the same day, with the leave of the Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH and subject to the law related to Court fees. Petitioners have not taken any permission to file two impugned orders in one writ petition.

Section 94 of CPC reads as under:-

Supplemental proceedings-

In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed (a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;

(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or