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

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 2691 of 2023 YOGESH BANSAL AND OTHERS Versus DR. ALOK GUPTA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri N.K. Gupta- Senior Advocate with Shri Shatru Daman Singh Bhadouriya- Advocate for petitioners/defendants.

Shri Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Raghuvanshi-Advocate and Shri Somyadeep Dwivedi- Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2.

ORDER This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioners-defendants, being aggrieved by the orders dated 01/04/2023 (Annexure P-1) and 18/04/2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Seventh District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Civil Suit No. 1045/2022, whereby the application filed by respondents/plaintiffs under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the CPC was allowed by the Trial Court and application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by petitioners/defendants was rejected by the Trial Court vide order 18/04/2023.

2.The brief facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the present petition, are that respondent Nos. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for declaration, compensation, and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants and the pro-forma respondents. It was pleaded in the suit that the property of the defendants is situated adjacent to the suit property and that, due to the wrongful acts committed by the defendants, the plaintiffs’ property collapsed during the intervening night of 20-21.06.2022. In paragraph No. 4 of the plaint, the boundaries of the collapsed property, which is the property in dispute, were specifically described by the plaintiffs, and a site map of the said property was also annexed with the plaint. It was further pleaded that as a consequence of the wrongful acts of the defendants, the plaintiffs suffered loss, and accordingly reliefs of declaration and compensation were sought. Additionally, a relief of permanent injunction was prayed for, seeking restraint against the defendants from interfering with the construction of the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking grant of a temporary injunction, however, the said application was withdrawn on 19.04.2023.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that, with respect to the damaged property and the garbage lying thereon, the parties be directed to maintain status quo and that the defendants be restrained from disturbing the damaged property and the garbage lying thereon. A reply to the said application was filed by the defendants, wherein it was specifically stated that the property in dispute is distinct from the area where the garbage is lying, which is situated on the defendants’ property. It was further contended that the defendants’ property is not the subject matter of the suit and, therefore, no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs in respect thereof. But on the contrary, application filed by plaintiffs under Section 94 read with Section 151 of CPC was allowed.

4. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to remove the garbage, contending that the same was causing disturbance, therefore, they were unable to use their own property, which is not in dispute and in respect of which no claim has been made by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a reply to the said application. After hearing learned counsel of both the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners/defendants.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court, the present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders passe