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

th

ON THE 9 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 5904 of 2025 SMT SADHANA KHARE Versus RAVIKANT MISHRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Girish Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ahadullah Usmani - Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER The present Misc. Appeal under the provisions of Order 43 Rule (1)

(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been instituted at the instance of the original Defendant no.4 to the suit, preferred by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 challenging the impugned order dated 22/05/2025. By the impugned order dated 22/05/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by Learned III District Judge, Sehora, District – Jabalpur (M.P) in Civil Suit No RCSA 112/2024 an application filed under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC has been allowed.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the Respondents No. 1 and 2, being the original plaintiffs, instituted a civil suit seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement dated 05.01.2021, allegedly executed by Defendants No. 1 to 3. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. RCSA 112/2024 and is presently pending adjudication before the Learned Trial Court. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking interim injunction. A perusal of the record reveals that the suit property comprises land bearing Khasra No. 313/1 (area 2.73 hectare), situated at Gram Sakri, Ward No. 18, Narsingh Ward, Nagar Palika Sehora, Tehsil Sehora, District Jabalpur (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). The suit property was originally recorded in the name of Shri Hanuman Ji Maharaj, through his Pujari Sitaram, son of Dhaniram, in the revenue records for the year 2018–19.

3. As per the suit, an agreement to sale was executed on 05/01/2021 between the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Respondents no. 3 and 4. The agreement was subject to obtain Government Permission. It was alleged in the suit that the respondents no. 1 to 3 have sold the suit property to the present appellant and other respondents No. 7 to 17 which cause irreparable loss to him. Thus, the suit was filed seeking relief of specific performance of contract. The application for temporary injunction was heard and vide order dated 22/05/2025 the application was allowed. This order dated 22/05/2025 is under challenged in the present appeal.

4 . Heard Shri Girish Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant learned counsel for appellant and Shri Ahadullah Usmani - Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the record and the impugned order.

5. Shri Girish Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant opposed the order impugned on the ground that the execution of the agreement is void ab-initio as the agreement was executed by respondent no.

4 who is a minor. It was also argued that no permission was sought from the revenue authorities before execution of the agreement. Another ground raised is that the stamp paper of the agreement to sale are required to be on the name of the buyer, whereas the stamp papers of the agreement are on the name of Lt. Sitaram Ji Son of Shri Hanuanji Maharaj, which is per se against the law. Most importantly, it was argued that the agreement has been executed on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 500/- which is not permissible in law as this stamp shall not be used in any type of agreement/ power of attorney. Lastly, it was argued that there is discrepancy in the description of the suit property. On all such grounds, a prayer was made for setting aside of the impugned order.

6. Per Contra, Shri Ahadullah Usmani - Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 has supported the order impugned on the ground that the appellant and the respondents no. 1 to 3 are creating third party rights on the suit property. The land in question has already been sold to respondents no. 7