1 MCC No. 299 of 2025 2026:CGHC:5921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 299 of 2025 1 - Sheikh Baji S/o Late Sheikh Mustafa Aged About 44 Years At Present Aged About 49 Years, R/o Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sheikh Subhan S/o Late Sheikh Mustafa Aged About 42 Years R/o Sukma, Tahsil And District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sheikh Meera S/o Late Sheikh Mustafa Aged About 72 Years R/o Mastanpara, Sukma, Tahsil And Distt.- Sukma, Chhattisgarh 2 - Janbee W/o Late Shri Sheikh Galib Aged About 50 Years R/o Mastanpara, Sukma, Tahsil And Distt.- Sukma, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jainbee W/o Sheikh Nazir Aged About 43 Years D/o Late Sheikh Galib, R/o Mastanpara, Sukma, Tahsil And Distt.- Sukma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shiekh Abdullah S/o Late Sheikh Galib Aged About 28 Years R/o Mastanpara, Sukma, Tahsil And Distt.- Sukma, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sheikh Subhanivi W/o Late Sheikh Khwaja Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 89 / Kha, Mastanpara, Ward No. 2, Sukma, Distt. Sukma, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shiekh Munisha Begam W/o Rajjak Aged About 26 Years D/o Late Shri Shiekh Khwaja, R/o Mastanpara, Sukma, Tahsil And Distt. Sukma, Chhattisgarh RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.02.04 16:02:38 +0530 2 MCC No. 299 of 2025 7 - Ameerunnisha D/o Late Sheikh Khwaja Aged About 30 Years W/o Nagul Meera, R/o House No. 4-252, Turkapalem, Dokiparru, Guntur (A.P.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 03/02/2026 1. This Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking the following prayer:— “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue notices and thereafter to initiate the proceedings u/o 39 rule 2-A of C.P.C for the dis-obedience/breach committed by the respondents of the order dated 23/09/2019 passed in F.A. No. 258/2019, in the interest of justice.” 2. (a) The short facts necessary for adjudication of the present application are that the original plaintiff, Sheikh Mustafa (since deceased and now represented through his legal representatives, who are arrayed as respondents herein), instituted a civil suit in respect of the suit land. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had developed the suit land by levelling it, erecting barbed-wire fencing, and installing a tube-well for irrigation purposes, thereby making it suitable for advanced agricultural use. It was further pleaded that the suit land contained seven mango fruit bearing 3 MCC No. 299 of 2025 trees and eleven teak trees and that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession thereof. (b) It was pleaded in the plaint that defendant Nos. 01 and 02, who are his sons, taking undue advantage of the plaintiff’s old age, ill-health, and diminished eyesight and hearing, got sale deeds executed in their favour in respect of 2.50 acres each out of the suit land on 02.06.2012 without payment of any consideration. It was further pleaded that at the relevant time the suit land was under loan with the State Bank of India, Sukma, and that the land was situated adjacent to the main road, making it highly valuable. However, the defendants allegedly got the land grossly undervalued and fraudulently registered the same in their names. On these grounds, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the sale deeds dated 02.06.2012 executed in favour of defendant Nos. 01 and 02 are illegal and void, confirmation of his possession over the suit land, and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. (c) In reply, Defendant Nos. 01 and 02 filed their written statement denying the allegations of fraud and non-payment of consideration. They denied that the plaintiff was suffering from any physical incapacity due to old age. They admitted that sale deeds in respect of 2.50 acres each were executed in their favour on 02.06.2012. As per their pleadings, the plaintiff had five sons, namely Sheikh Meera, late Sheikh Galib, Sheikh Subhan (defendant No. 02), Sheikh Khwaja, and Sheikh Baji (defendant 4 MCC No. 299 of 2025 No. 01). It was contended that the plaintiff intended to settle his properties during his lifetime and free himself from outstanding liabilities and, therefore, through defendant No. 02, submitted an application dated 18.05.2012 before the Anjuman Islamia Committee, Sukma, for settlement of his properties. Pursuant to a meeting of the said Committee and in accordance with its decision, the defendants paid ₹2,00,000/- each to the plaintiff, whereafter the sale deeds were executed. It was further pleaded that since execution of the sale deeds, the defendants have been in peaceful possession of the suit land and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. (d) After due appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court allowed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit land and that the defendants had failed to prove that the sale deeds dated 02.06.2012 were executed for valid consideration or with the free and informed consent of the plaintiff. The Trial Court further held that the defendants had taken undue advantage of the plaintiff’s old age and physical infirmities and had got the sale deeds executed by undervaluing the suit land. Accordingly, the sale deeds dated 02.06.2012 executed in favour of defendant Nos. 01 and 02 in respect of 2.50 acres each were declared illegal, void, and not binding on the plaintiff. The Trial Court also confirmed the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land and permanently restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession thereof. 5 MCC No. 299 of 2025 (e) Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant Nos. 01 and 02 preferred a First Appeal bearing FA No. 258/2019, wherein this Court, vide order dated 23/09/2019, directed that both parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession of the property in question till the next date of hearing, and thereafter the interim order continued from time to time. 3. The present MCC has been filed by the applicant seeking issuance of notices and initiation of proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for the disobedience/breach committed by the respondents of the order dated 23/09/2019 passed in FA No. 258/2019. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submits that despite the specific interim order passed by this Court on 23.09.2019 in FA No. 258/2019 whereby directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit land, the respondents/plaintiffs have repeatedly attempted to encroach upon the disputed land. It is submitted that while doing so, the legal representatives of respondent No. 1 abused the applicants in filthy language and extended life threats. He further submits that the applicants immediately approached the learned Tahsildar, Sukma, whereupon proceedings were initiated and an interim order dated 12.06.2024 was passed restraining encroachment over the disputed land. Subsequently, on 19.12.2024, the learned Tahsildar directed the parties to maintain the possession of the disputed land, as 6 MCC No. 299 of 2025 has been maintained earlier till final disposal of the matter pending before this Court. It is submitted that in blatant violation of the aforesaid orders, on 20.12.2024, when the applicants were cultivating the disputed land, the legal representatives of respondent No. 1 again trespassed upon the land, threatened the applicants, and used abusive language, leading to registration of an FIR against them under Sections 296 and 351(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Learned counsel submits that at the time of passing of the judgment and decree by the learned Trial Court, as well as the interim order by this Court, the applicants were in possession of the disputed land. However, the respondents, without any authority of law, forcibly dispossessed the applicants, thereby committing wilful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court. It is submitted that the conduct of the respondents amounts to a clear violation of the injunction order and squarely attracts the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, rendering them liable for the consequences prescribed thereunder. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial Court has categorically affirmed that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land. The said finding was thereafter challenged by the defendants, whereupon this Court, in the First Appeal, directed the parties to maintain status quo. Once the plaintiff had already been judicially declared to be in possession and the order of status quo was passed thereafter, the allegation of encroachment is inherently misconceived and untenable, as there could be no encroachment upon a 7 MCC No. 299 of 2025 person who was already held to be in lawful possession. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 23.09.2019 passed by this Court in FA No. 258/2019, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the disputed land. 8. It is trite law that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC are quasi-criminal in nature and the burden lies heavily upon the applicant to establish, by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, that there has been a conscious, wilful and deliberate violation of the injunction order passed by the Court. Mere allegations or disputed assertions are not sufficient to attract the penal consequences contemplated under the said provision. 9. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the learned Trial Court, while decreeing the suit on the basis of evidence and material available on record, categorically held that the original plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The said finding continues to operate and has not been set aside, though it is under challenge in the First Appeal. It is in this backdrop that this Court, while entertaining the First Appeal, directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession vide order dated 23.09.2019. The said order was intended to preserve the 8 MCC No. 299 of 2025 existing state of affairs and did not confer or divest possession of either party. 10. The allegations levelled in the present application essentially pertain to alleged encroachment, abuse, threats and dispossession said to have been committed by the legal representatives of respondent No.1. However, apart from bald assertions, reference to proceedings before the Tahsildar and registration of an FIR, no independent or unimpeachable material has been placed on record to conclusively demonstrate that the respondents have altered the possession in violation of the interim order of this Court. Proceedings before the revenue authorities and the registration of a criminal case are independent in nature and cannot, by themselves, be treated as proof of wilful disobedience of a judicial order passed by this Court. 11. Once the possession of the plaintiff stood judicially recognised and the status quo order was passed thereafter, the allegation of encroachment, without establishing a subsequent lawful possession of the applicants, is inherently weak and rests upon disputed questions of fact. Such disputed factual controversies cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, which require a clear and unambiguous breach of the Court’s order. 12. This Court, therefore, finds that the applicants have failed to establish any wilful or deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 23.09.2019. The essential ingredients for invoking the provisions of 9 MCC No. 299 of 2025 Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC are conspicuously absent in the present case. 13. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul/Gowri