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

th

ON THE 11 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 910 of 2016 M/S SHUBHALAYA MINES AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

Versus MAHINDRA DWELLING PRIVATE LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Anupama Singhai - Advocate for the appellant.

None for respondents.

ORDER The present Misc. appeal has been filed under the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (r ) of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby order dated 11/03/2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.1232-A of 2013 has been challenged. By passing order dated 11/03/2016 an application filed by the plaintiff/appellant for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected.

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

3. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred a suit bearing no. 1232-A/2013 for declaration that the defendant no.1 was not having any right to cancel the agreement dated 26/04/2011 and alternatively a decree for recovery of Rs. 16,90,10,646/- was also sought. As per the averments of the suit, the defendants no. 2 to 4 own and possess the suit property bearing khasra nos.16/2, 16/4, 18/1/1/2 and 18/1/1/4 total admeasuring 32 acres situated at Village Bhouri, Tehsil Huzur, District – Bhopal. An agreement dated 20/09/2010 has been executed between the defendant no. 1 and defendants no. 2 to 4 for development of the suit land for colonization. Another agreement has been executed between the plaintiff and the respondent no.1 dated 26/04/2011 whereby the defendant no. 1 has authorized the plaintiff to carry out the development on his expenses. As per this agreement, right to sale of land was also granted to the plaintiff and the possession of the property was also handed over to the plaintiff.

4. As per the suit, the plaintiff has duly developed the said colony and obtained permission from various departments. It was also stated that an amount of Rs. 1 crore has been sent to the defendants and huge expenses has been incurred in getting various permissions. By issuing notice dated 11/06/2013, the agreement dated 26/04/2011 has been cancelled. This cancellation of agreement is challenged by filing the suit. The suit is supported by an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff. The application has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 11/03/2016.

Resultantly the present appeal has been filed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

6. It was been argued that the possession of the plaintiff upon the suit land is settled. It is also argued that in execution of the agreement dated 26/04/2011, the consent of defendants no. 2 to 4 is not required. It is also argued that the defendants no. 2 to 4 have never objected to the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. An amount of Rs. 1 Crores has been transferred into the accounts of the defendants and huge amount has been invested in getting permissions for government departments. Lastly, it is submitted that the plaintiff is having strong prime facie case in favour and interim protection is required to protect the possession of the plaintiff.

7. Heard.

8. For the relief of temporary injunction, the preliminary requirement is prima facie case has to be established. It is to be required to see that whether the person who has entered into an agreement to sell has right, title and interest in the suit property and also that whether he is having locus to execute the agreement. The record of the case reveals that a memorandum of understanding dated 20/09/2010 has been executed between the defendant no. 1 and defendants no. 2 to 4 and this MOU clarifies that there is an understanding between the parties that the owner of the property is ready and willing to sell the suit property to the defendant no.1 subject to payment of whole sale consideration. Subseque