IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 9950 of 2024 KRASHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI MORENA Versus AYUKT NAGRIY PRASHASAN AND VIKAS AND PRABANDHAK SANCHALAK MPUDC ARBAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shyam Prakash Jain - learned Counsel for appellant- plaintiff.

Shri Nirmal Sharma- learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2/ State.

Shri K.K.Sharma- learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER The present miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena, against the order dated 03-12-2024 passed by the Court of Third District Judge, Morena, in Regular Civil Suit No. 230 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (IA No. 1/24) was rejected.

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants regarding a dispute over land measuring 1600 square meters (40x40) situated within the premises of the appellant organization. The appellant alleged that the respondents, without executing the required agreement and depositing the stipulated amount of Rs. 1,02,40,000/- as per the Collector’s guideline rate, attempted to carry out unauthorized construction of a high-level water tank on the said land on 16-02-2024 through their appointed construction agency, M/s Sarathi Construction & Infra Pvt. Ltd., Gwalior.

3. The appellant-plaintiff further pleaded that the disputed land is owned and occupied by the plaintiff under the provisions of the MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, and the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, through notification dated 09-10-1984, had declared the area as part of the Mandi premises. The appellant sought a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to restrain the respondents from carrying out any construction or other work on the disputed land until the resolution of the suit.

4. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the land had already been lawfully allotted to the Municipal Corporation Morena for the city water supply scheme, in accordance with the Collector’s order dated 29-12-2022. They submitted that the construction work is being carried out in public interest with the consent of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s allegations are false and aimed at creating a fictitious dispute to delay the project.

5. The trial court, after hearing arguments of the parties, rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, vide the impugned order dated 03-12-2024. Hence, this appeal.

6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and material on record and is prima facie illegal and unreasonable. It is submitted that the trial court failed to properly apply the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions. The appellant argued that it has a strong prima facie case regarding ownership and possession of the disputed land, the balance of convenience is in its favor, and it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, as the respondents are attempting unauthorized construction without depositing the stipulated amount or executing the agreement. It was further submitted that a statutory appeal against the Collector’s order is pending before the Court of Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior, and the trial court ought to have considered this fact while granting temporary relief. Accordingly, the appellant prayed that the impugned order be set aside and a temporary injunction be granted restraining the respondents from carrying out construction or other work on the disputed land until the matter is resolved.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impu