“Hostile to Court”: Madhya Pradesh High Court Jails Parties For Violating Status Quo Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a strongly worded order underscoring that litigants cannot be permitted to violate court injunctions with impunity, holding multiple parties guilty of deliberately breaching a status quo order and imposing stringent consequences including attachment of property and civil imprisonment.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, sitting at the Gwalior Bench, was dealing with a case under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging wilful disobedience of interim orders passed in a pending second appeal. The court found that despite a clear direction to maintain status quo over disputed agricultural land, two co-sharers proceeded to execute sale deeds in favour of a third party, effectively attempting to defeat the court’s order.

Rejecting the defence that the sold properties were not part of the dispute, the court undertook a detailed examination of the pleadings and held that the lands in question, though renumbered, were in fact part of the suit property. The court observed that “contention… that properties which have been sold… are not the subject matter of Second Appeal is misconceived and is false even to the knowledge of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2,” making it clear that the violation was conscious and deliberate.

In a significant observation, the court noted that one of the respondents was a practicing advocate and therefore fully aware of the legal consequences of breaching an injunction. Despite this, he proceeded with the sale and even attempted to avoid service of court notices. The court recorded that such conduct “clearly shows his hostile and disrespectful attitude towards the Court,” emphasizing the need for deterrent action.

The bench further rejected the plea of the purchaser claiming to be a bona fide buyer without knowledge of the pending litigation. Noting that all parties belonged to the same village and were aware of the dispute and the subsisting injunction, the court held that the plea of lack of knowledge was untenable. It observed that the argument advanced on behalf of the purchaser “has proved to be a boomerang,” establishing that the transaction was not innocent.

Taking a stern view, the court held all key parties, including the sellers, purchaser, and attesting witnesses, guilty of breaching the injunction orders. It clarified that even facilitating such a transaction, despite knowledge of the court’s order, would amount to contemptuous conduct.

On the question of punishment, the court emphasized that the objective of sentencing in such cases is deterrence. It rejected attempts by the respondents to limit the consequences to only the disputed property, noting that such a course would allow the primary wrongdoer to escape liability while shifting the burden onto others. The court remarked that such submissions were “not bona fide but another attempt to go scot free.”

Invoking its powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, the court directed attachment of the entire suit property covered under the relevant schedules and appointed the Collector, Bhind as receiver to take possession and manage the land. The receiver has been directed to undertake cultivation through an independent agent and deposit the proceeds before the trial court for eventual disbursement.

The court also declared both sale deeds executed in violation of the injunction as “non-est” and directed the sellers to refund the sale consideration to the purchaser within a stipulated time, failing which further contempt proceedings would be initiated.

In addition to property attachment, the court imposed civil imprisonment. One of the principal violators was sentenced to three months’ civil jail, with the court noting that no mitigating circumstances justified leniency. Other respondents, including the purchaser and witnesses, were also awarded imprisonment, though the court granted a relatively lesser term to the female purchaser.

Case Title: Ram Swaroop and Others v. Harimohan Singh and Others

Date of Order: March 11, 2026

Bench: Justice G. S. Ahluwalia