IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 2120 of 2024 OM PRAKASH AHUJA Versus SHANTILAL JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.S. Jaiswal - Senior Advocate with Shri Krishana Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms.C.Veda Rao, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER The present contempt petition has been filed against a bi-parte interim order dated 20.7.2015 passed in connected F.A.No.337/2002 directing that any person including those persons who have purchased the property are hereby restrained from raising any construction on the disputed land. Despite that if the appellants noticed that any construction after passing of this order has taken place, he is at liberty to lodge the criminal complaint at the relevant Police station and the Police authorities shall take appropriate steps.

2. It is submitted that respondents no.1 and 2 again started carrying out the construction by raising the boundary wall upon which a complaint was made to the police station on 06.11.2023 and since no action was taken further complaint was made on 18.04.2024, received on 22.04.2024. However, the respondent No. 3 has declined to register criminal complaint against the respondent No. 1& 2 inspite of its receipt and clear direction passed by this Court in the order dated 20.07.2015. It is submitted that the aforesaid act of carrying out further construction is in wilful disobedience to the order dated 20.7.2015. Thus, respondents no.1 and 2 are liable to be punished as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that this court vide order dated 14.10.2019 had dismissed F.A.No.337/2002 for want of prosecution. Against the said order, the applicant filed M.C.C.No.3036/2023 for restoration of First Appeal which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2024 and the appeal was restored to its original number. However, no notice was issued in the above M.C.C. to the respondents of the appeal. It is submitted that first time, the respondents No.1 and 2 got the knowledge regarding the restoration of appeal when refutation of paper publication was published by Shri R.S.Sharma, Advocate on 21.04.2024 in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’, in which, it was mentioned that the First Appeal No.337/2002 has been restored vide order dated 24.01.2024. It is further submitted that the applicant has not filed a single document to prove that boundary wall has been constructed after publication of Refutation of paper publication dated 21.04.2024. It is further submitted that in the photographs filed by the applicant the date is mentioned as 11.04.2024 though paper publication/Refutation of paper publication was published on 21.04.2024. It is further submitted that the non-applicants No.1 and 2 have constructed a boundary wall during the period when the appeal was dismissed and was not restored by this Hon’ble Court, as such, there was no such interim order in existence. Hence, no case of contempt is made out against the present non-applicant No.1 and 2.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of the application, it is evident that the applicant himself has stated in the memo of petition that respondents no.1 and 2 have started raising boundary wall of which the complaint was made to the police on 6.11.2023. It is pertinent to note that First Appeal was dismissed in default on 14.10.2019 and thereafter was restored to its original number on 24.1.2024. Thus, it is evident that in Nov. 2023 when alleged construction was raised by the respondents, neither F.A.No.337/2002 nor interim injunction order dated 20.7.2015 was in existence. Thus, it cannot be said that respondents no.1 and 2 have committed breach of the interim order dated 20.7.2015. Moreover, the respondents came to know about restoration of First Appeal only on 21.4.2024 when the publication in respe