IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2205 of 2024

SMT. MEERA BAI LODHA

Versus

MANSINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Rajnish Sharma - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Shri Ashish Singh Jadon, and Shri Akram Khan -

Advocates for respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 4.

Shri T.C. Narwariya - Advocate for respondent No. 5.

Shri Saurabh Bhelsewale - Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

Shri K.N. Gupta - Senior Advocate, assisted by Sushri Suhani Dhariwal - Advocate

for respondent No. 8.

ORDER signed the sale deed as consenters, whereas respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have signed the said sale deed as witnesses. It is submitted that respondent No. 8 has registered the sale deed in spite of a written objection made by applicant

This M.C.C. under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC has been filed

complaining disobedience and breach of order dated 06/03/2014 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 38/2014, by which parties were restrained from alienating or creating third-party right or interest on the disputed

property till further order.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that in spite of aforesaid

temporary injunction order, respondent No. 1 has sold the disputed property, i.e., Survey No. 550, area 0.366 hectare, situated at village Puraposar, Patwari Haka No. 51, Tahshil and District Guna, to respondent No. 5 by registered sale deed dated 01/03/2024 and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have

3. Per contra, respondent No. 8 has filed his unconditional apology on the pretext that respondent No. 8 was discharging his duties as Sub Registrar, and there was no intention on his part to bypass or disobey the order of this Court.

4. Respondent No. 5 has also tendered his unconditional apology but has claimed that applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that it was informed by the seller that the dispute has already stood finally and amicably settled between the parties pursuant to an intervention by the respected members of the society, and therefore, respondent No. 5 had purchased the property in dispute.

5. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have also stated that they have high regard for the Court, and since they were informed that the contesting parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 became witnesses to the sale deed.

6. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed their separate returns. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted their unconditional apology, but it is clear from the reply that respondent No. 4 has not submitted his unconditional apology. Again, a stand has been taken by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 that because of an out-of-court amicable settlement, the sale deed was executed, and there was no intention on the part of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to violate or disobey the interim injunction order passed by this Court.

7. The name of respondent No. 2 - Bablu Lodha has already been deleted on account of his death.

8. In the light of returns filed by respondent Nos. 1, and 3 to 8, a rejoinder has been filed by applicant and claimed that no settlement, either oral or written, was ever arrived at between the parties at any point of time, much less on or around 22/07/2024 or prior thereto. It is submitted that even an FIR in Crime No. 40/2024 was lodged on 13/01/2024 at Police Station Guna, District Guna for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

9. Considered the submissions made by parties.

Respondent No. 8.

10. During the course of arguments, counsel for respondent No. 8 submitted that since he was not a party to the litigation, and since the interim order passed by this Court is an order in personam and not in rem, therefore, respondent No. 8 was not obliged to follow the interim order. Furthermore, it is submitted that this Court, by order dated 22/07/2024, had issued notice to respondent No. 1 only, and therefore, he is not required to make any further submissions.

11. Aforesaid submission