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. 1198 of 2012 OM PRAKASH AHUJA Versus SMT. RITA GROVER AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R. S. Jaiswal - Senior Advocate with Shri K.K. Gautam -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.C.Veda Rao, with Shri Anil Lala - learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

ORDER With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two days' time to file necessary application to bring on record amended registered correction deed of the sale-deed which is uploaded today in the Reference Field of ERP portal.

Counsel for respondents submits that he is not available for another two days as he is on adjustment.

Counsels for the parties have requested that the matter has already been heard and it be kept as heard and by that time the application be filed and if the applicant wishes to file reply, they may file reply within two days from the receipt of the application.

Heard.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed against a bi-parte interim order dated 1.9.2004 passed in connected F.A.No.337/2002 directing that if respondents no.1, 3 and 4 alienate the suit property, they shall incorporate a term in the sale-deed that such sale will be subject to final decision in this appeal and the purchaser will be acquiring the property at his own risk and cost.

3. It is submitted that respondent no.1 Ashok Grover and respondent no.3 Mahesh Grover died during the pendency of the suit and Smt.Rita Grover was substituted in place of Shri Ashok Grover. It is further submitted that in spite of the clear order regarding the imposition of condition, the respondent no.1 sold the property vide sale-deed dated 24.2.2012 to respondents no.2 and 3 without mentioning the condition, as directed by this Court in the order dated 1.9.2004. It is submitted that the aforesaid act of executing the sale-deed without mentioning the condition is in wilful disobedience to the order dated 1.9.2004. Thus, respondent no.1 is liable to be punished as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that as the import of the order was that the purchaser should be informed and made known about the said order and he should not be made to suffer in case appeal is allowed, Smt. Rita Grover executed a M.O.U with the purchasers to that effect and thus neither the seller nor the purchasers have violated order of this court as sufficient compliance of the order has been made.

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

6. From perusal of record, it is evident that respondent no.1 had expired on 28.10.2005 and respondent no.3 had expired on 7.11.2005. However, the LR of deceased respondent no.1 was substituted vide order dated 20.7.2015 passed in F.A.No.337/2002. The sale-deed was executed by LR of respondent no.1 Ritu Grover on 27.2.2012. The present contempt petition was filed against LR of the respondent no.1 in the year 2012, when she was not party to the appeal as she was not impleaded as LR of respondent no.1 in the first appeal. Thus, she was not party to the appeal when the alleged sale-deed was executed. However, as the LR of the respondent was not aware of the interim order passed by this court and as a matter of law, appeal stood abated after expiry of due period of substitution of LRs, thus, any action taken after abatement cannot be a subject matter. However, non-applicant being LR of original respondent no.1 is also governed by the order passed against the original respondent from whom she has inherited the property.

7. As the sale-deed has been executed without mentioning the condition as directed by this Court vide order dated 1.9.2004, this court found that the non-applicant, LR of respondent no.1 is guilty of flouting the order of this Court. However, considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that a MOU