IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI MISC. APPEAL No. 715 of 2025 AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Anant Athawale, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Shri Gauransh Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

Ms. Vishakha Raghwanshi, advocate appearing on behalf of Ms.

Darshana Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

Heard and Reserved on : 23.09.2025 Pronounced on : 21.11.2025 ORDER The present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r)of CPC against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned trial court in Civil Suit No.102-A/24 whereby rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the appellants/plaintiffs.

2. The short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a civil suit for declaration and possession against the respondents. It was averred in the plaint that in Ward No.12 (old Ward No.3) called Nai Sadak, Jawahar Maarg, District-Shajapur, a plot having length of 45 fts. and width 31.6" is situated. That piece of the land (hereinafter "suit property") was purchased by the grand-father of the appellants namely Late Lakhmichand vide registered sale deed dated 22.01.1957 from one Leela Devi, who had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 21.11.1955 from one Nanhe Khan Miyaan.

3. It was also averred in the plaint that Lakhmichand had died issue less and unmarried on 24.04.1975. The father of Krupachand was real brother of Lakhmichand, thus, Lakhmichand had adopted Krupachand. And Krupachand has died on 26.10.2013. After his death, wife of Late Krupachand and his son Akshay Kumar (appellant / plaintiff No.1) and two daughters (the appellants / plaintiff Nos.2 and 3) have remained. Wife of Late Krupachand has died on 24.07.2023 and one son namely Akshay Kumar Jain has left home 35-36 years ago with respect to whom a declaration of civil death has been made vide judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed in civil suit No.95/2019.

4. The plaintiffs have further stated in the plaint that the suit property was a dilapidated building which was rented to one Anwar Ali on 13.10.1980 for a period of 11 months at monthly rent of Rs.100/- by executing a rent agreement. However, the four sides of the suit property were wrongly mentioned in as much as for the east side of the property "Bheru Ji Kaa Chabutaraa" was mentioned which is not correct in view of the registered sale deed dated 20.10.1957. It was further averred in the plaint that based on this incorrect mention of east side boundary of the suit property, same mistake was committed in the Nazul NOC dated 30.05.1978 in which it has wrongly been mentioned as in the east side "Shankar Chabutaraa". It is only at the time of drafting of the plaint that these mistakes came to notice of the plaintiffs/appellants. It has further been stated in para 11 of the plaint that at the time of execution of registered sale-deed dated 22.01.1957, the suit property was in the form of an open land i.e. a collapsed building and possession of which was handed over by the seller Leeladevi to purchaser Lakshmichand by earmarking the suit property by the pegs.

5. The appellants/plaintiffs further stated that they are in continuous possession of the suit property since it was purchased by Lakhmichand in the year 1957, however, because of oversight the name of the purchaser could not be mutated in the revenue record and when the respondents started construction on the suit property on 30.01.2024, in a sudden manner, a cause of action for filing the suit arose. These were the pleadings in the plaint.

6. Appellants/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 along with the plaint before the learned trial court for grant of temporary injunction in as much as "till the pendency of the suit no construction shall be carried out on the suit property".

7. The respondents filed the