IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT Indore FA No. 1118 of 2025 (ESHAN AUTOCORP INDIA LLP THROUGH ITS PARTNER RAMESH NENWANI Vs SHRIMATI INDARJEET KAUR AND OTHERS )

Shri Pramod C. Nair, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Vishal Baheti Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Satyajeet Mane Advocate appeared for the respondent.

Heard on: 03.11.2025 Delivered on: 11.12.2025 ORDER The following interlocutory applications are listed for hearing today:

(i) I.A. No. 6221/2025, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for stay of order and decree dated 16.05.2025 passed in RCS No.488A/2020.

(ii) I.A.No.8836, application for appointment of Court Commissioner to inspect the suit premises.

(iii) I.A.No.8969/2025 an application filed on behalf of the respondents for vacating the interim status quo order dated

06.08.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while the present First Appeal was pending, the respondents-initiated execution proceedings without serving any notice or intimation upon the appellant. Taking advantage of the possession warrant, the respondents, reached the suit premises on 05.08.2025 and commenced eviction in an illegal and high-handed manner. He submitted that when the matter was taken up on 05.08.2025 at around 4 p.m., the respondents represented that the premises had already been vacated, pursuant to which this Court directed the trial court to furnish the Nazir’s report and Kabza Panchnama till 4:30 p.m. However, material placed on record by the appellant demonstrates that the eviction process continued till 4 a.m. on 06.08.2025. It was vehemently contended that possession is still incomplete inasmuch as air-conditioners, furniture, fixtures, costly instruments, machinery, four cars and other valuable articles continue to remain inside the locked premises, whereas the lift had already been dismantled earlier by the respondents themselves. Placing reliance on photographs and other evidence, counsel prayed that an independent Court Commissioner be appointed to visit the spot, inspect the premises and submit a factual report so that the correct position can be ascertained.

3. Senior counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayers and submitted that a legally enforceable eviction decree along with a money decree for ₹2,44,55,000/- plus subsequent arrears of ₹2,11,50,000/- with 12% interest was passed on 16.05.2025. Since the appellant failed to vacate within the stipulated period, the respondents lawfully moved execution, obtained a possession warrant dated 25.07.2025 and, through the District Nazir, Indore, took complete vacant physical possession on 05.08.2025 itself, which fact stands duly recorded in the panchnama prepared on the same date, much before any interim order was passed by this Court. He submitted that when the status-quo order came to be passed on 06.08.2025, the prevailing status quo was that of exclusive possession with the decree- holders. The continuation of the said status-quo order is causing grave prejudice and continuous financial loss to the respondents, who are being deprived of the use and income-generating capacity of valuable commercial premises. It was further urged that the appellant has not brought any formal application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC satisfying the triple test of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; in the absence of such application, the interim restraint is wholly unjustified and deserves to be vacated forthwith. Emphasising that the appellant is a lawfully evicted judgment-debtor who has not satisfied even the substantial money decree, senior counsel submitted that the balance of convenience lies overwhelmingly in favour of the decree-holders and prayed for immediate vacation of the order dated 06.08.2025.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. All the above applications pertain to the execution of the decree of eviction and possession dated 16.05.2025 and to the manner and effect of the execution pro