IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 41064 of 2025 ARUN KAKAD S/O LATE SHRI TRILOKINATH KAKAD THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY MS. RATNA PRABHA LAMBA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri A.S. Baghel - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate assisted by Shri Shri Anuj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents no.5 & 6.

ORDER Heard on IA No.24586/2025, which is an application filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 for dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds of suppression of material facts and false pleadings.

2. It is contended that the petitioners have deliberately and willfully suppressed the fact that the temporary injunction granted in favour of petitioner No. 2 in Civil Suit being RCSA No. 447 of 2016 was vacated by the learned Appellate Court in MCA No. 112 of 2023 by order dated 06-04- 2024. The said order was put to challenge by filing a Miscellaneous Petition No. 2167 of 2024 and by order dated 17-05-2024, the miscellaneous petition was dismissed and the order dated 06-04-2024 was affirmed. Thereafter, an SLP was referred before the Hon. Supreme Court being SLP (C) No. 12700/2024 and by order dated 28-02-2025 the SLP was also dismissed and the vacating order passed by the Trial Court was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said orders have not been placed on record by the petitioner, nor pleaded in the writ petition. On the contrary, the pleading in the writ petition shows that there is an interim order granted by the learned Trial Court.

3. It is submitted that apart from the litigation wherein the orders have been passed against the petitioners, he has furnished the details pertaining to other litigations which are pending adjudication before the Court or disposed off. This goes to show a deliberate attempt to suppress such information from the Court. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the plaint, wherein the relief sought is for setting aside of an order dated 30.4.2016 passed in Revenue Case No. 6-A/70/2014-15 by the Tehsildar, Gorakhpur - 2, Jabalpur. It is submitted that the order 30.4.2016 is an order of eviction. A false statement is made in the writ petition that the proceedings under Section 250 of MPLRC were initiated during the pendency of the Civil Suit, so as to suggest parallel adjudication by the Revenue Authorities. It is contended that the order under Section 250 of MPLRC was passed on 30-04-2016 which was challenged by the Petitioner No. 2 in the Civil Suit being RCSA No. 447 of 2016. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the said order under 250 of MPLRC was passed during the pendency of the said Civil Sui, rather, the civil Suit was instituted after the order was passed, because the said order was put to challenge in the said Civil Suit as reflected from the prayer made in the Civil Suit. The declaration made in the writ petition stating that no adverse orders or relevant proceeding exists, is false and the said declaration is given on the affidavit filed by the petitioners. Filing of false affidavit and giving such false pleadings on oath, amounts to obstruct the execution of the final order and initiating of abusive proceedings before the Court, which attracts a provision of Contempt of the Court. It is an attempt to frustrate the execution of the final order which is affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the petition being full of suppression of material information should be dismissed at threshold with heavy cost. The Tehsildar has passed a reasoned order on 12-11-2025 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner No. 1 categorically recording that no right, title or interest survives in his favour with respect to the land in question, including Khasra No. 24/2. The said observation has been made after minutely scrutinizin