IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 17 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 6637 of 2025 SHAMSHAD BEG AND OTHERS Versus CHENDRAKANTA DUBEY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Devendra Singh - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Rohit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the respondents no.1 and 3.

Shri Mayank Upadhyaya - Advocate for respondent no.2.

ORDER The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the legality and validity of orders dated 01.04.2025 and 10.07.2025 passed in Civil Suit RCS No.90-A/2025 by VIth District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby the applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction have been dismissed.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall be referred by their rank in the trial Court.

3. In pith and substance, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a Regular Civil Suit bearing no.90-A/2025 (Shamshad Beg & Others Vs. Chendrakanta Dubey and others), against respondents claiming the relief of declaration, permanent Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA injunction and specific performance of the agreement. Along with the suit an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been filed. This application has been rejected vide order dated 01.04.2025. The appellant has filed another application under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, whereby a relief has been sought for variation or setting aside the order dated 01.04.2025 on the ground of discovery of new documents. This application has been dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2025. Both these orders dated 01.04.2025 and 10.07.2025 are the subject matter of the present Misc. Appeal.

4. The suit averments revel that the present plaintiff has preferred a suit against the respondents claiming the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of the agreement dated 17.05.2021. The plaint averments clarify that the defendant no.1 owns and possesses agricultural land at Gram Maharajpur, Halka No.60, Tehsil - Aadhartal, District- Jabalpur (MP) bearing khasra no.306/1, Rakba 1.6800 Hectare (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”). A tripartite venture agreement dated 17.05.2021 was executed between respondent no.2 and appellants with due permission of respondent no.1. The total sale consideration as shown in the agreement to sell is Rs.4,55,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.75,91,000/- has already been paid to defendants no. 1 & 2 by the appellants. The sale-deed was required to be executed within 10 days after the lock-down period of Covid-19 comes to an end. The execution of the sale deed was kept pending on the ground that certain fraudulent entries had been made in the land revenue records. As per averments of the plaint, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA correction in the entry has been done on 19.09.2024 and on the same date the respondent no.1 transferred the suit property to respondent no. 3 Sandeep Soni by executing sale-deed and created third party rights over the suit property. These series of events gives cause of action for filing the suit. With no option left the plaintiff has preferred the suit for grant of relief of permanent injunction and also for grant of temporary injunction during pendency of the suit.

5. The defendants have caused their appearance and filed their respective replies.

6. The Trial Court after a close look at the facts and law of the matter dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 01.04.2025 holding that no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff is made out. It was categorically observed by the trial Court that the appellant/plaintiff had entered into agreement with respondent no.2/defendant no.2, whereas defendant no.2 was not the owner of the suit property and therefore, having no right to execute any agreement regarding suit