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

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 163 of 2026 SMT.NAMRATA SINGH AND OTHERS Versus ANIL SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4/State, on advance notice.

ORDER The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the original civil suit, have filed the present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief against the respondents' actions, specifically their interference with the petitioners' possession of the suit land and the ongoing demarcation proceedings.

2. It is the contention of petitioners that the suit land, bearing Survey No.

1180, Rakwa 11 Bigha and 1.5 Viswa, is situated in Village Aron, Tahsil Gatigaon, District Gwalior. In 2006, respondents No. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement to sell the land to Late Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, the petitioners' husband/father. At the time of the agreement, physical possession of the land was handed over to Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, and the petitioners have been cultivating the land since 12.10.2006. They also have an electricity and borewell connection on the land. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh passed away on 05.10.2019, leaving behind his wife and two children. In 2025, after an unexplained delay, the respondents initiated demarcation proceedings before the Tahsildar, a revenue process that cannot decide civil rights, with the intention of disturbing the petitioners' settled possession of the land. In response, the petitioners filed a civil suit on 07.07.2025 along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, seeking an injunction to prevent dispossession. They also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC on 15.07.2025 due to the imminent threat of dispossession. However, the trial court dismissed the application and issued a notice to the respondents without granting any interim relief. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, raising technical objections. The trial court declined to decide the petitioners' application for interim relief on the ground that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was pending. The petitioners contend that the respondents are attempting to forcibly dispossess them under the guise of the demarcation process, thereby interfering with their settled possession. Despite filing an application under Section 151 CPC for maintaining the status quo, the petitioners' plea has not been addressed by the trial court. The refusal to consider the injunction application defeats the very purpose of interim relief and amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners further contend that the pendency of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not bar the adjudication of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. They further argue that settled possession, even against the true owner, deserves protection until dispossession is carried out through due process of law. The revenue demarcation proceedings cannot decide civil rights or override the pending civil suit. Denial of interim relief exposes the petitioners to irreparable loss and defeats the very object of the civil suit, as forcible dispossession would render the suit infructuous.

3. Looking to the nature of case, there is no need to issue notice to remaining respondents- defendants.

4. Upon hearing the contentions of the petitioners and reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the trial court erred in not considering the petitioners' application for interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The petitioners are entitled to protection of their settled possession until the civil suit is decided, and the revenue demarcation proceedings cannot override the pending civil litigation concerning their rights over the