MP High Court Orders Civil Imprisonment Over Sale Of Disputed Land Despite Stay, Flags Advocate's Dual Role As Counsel & Co-Sharer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken strict action in a case involving the deliberate violation of a temporary injunction, ordering the attachment of the disputed property and civil imprisonment for several respondents, including two advocates. The bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia further observed:"Sentencing policy is for deterrence and not for saving the unscrupulous persons who have no respect for the Court, specifically when one of them is a practicing advocate and his cousin borther Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate is practising in High Court, Gwalior bench. Therefore, submission made by counsel for Respondent Nos 1, that this Court, by exercising its jurisdiction, may attach only the disputed property, i.e., Survey No. 80 is hereby rejected"The matter arose from an application alleging breach of a temporary injunction order dated November 7 2023, passed in Second Appeal, which directed parties to maintain the status quo over the disputed property. The injunction was later continued through an order dated August 14, 2024. According to the applicants, despite the subsisting court order, respondent no 2 executed a sale deed on December 6, 2023, in favour of respondent no 3 concerning land survey no 79 located in District Bhind. On the same day, respondent no 1 also executed another sale deed in favour of respondent no 3 for land bearing survey no 80, situated in the same village. During the proceedings, the court noted that notices were issued to respondents on October 8, 2025, and were repeatedly returned despite several attempts by the postal authorities. Observing suspicious circumstances, the bench issued arrest warrants against respondents 1 to 5. Subsequently, respondents 1, 2 and 4 appeared before the court and sought cancellation of the warrants after depositing costs of Rs 10,000 each. On March 9, 2026, respondents 3 and 5 were produced before the court by police in execution of the arrest warrants and were released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds. The case was finally heard on March 10, 2026. The bench further took note of the role of Advocate RP Singh, who appeared on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2. The court observed that Mr Singh was a co-sharer in the disputed property and co-appellant in the second appeal. It was further observed that respondents 1 and 2 were his cousins. Significantly, the court found that respondent no 1 had deliberately avoided service of notices while continuing to appear before the other courts and performing his duties as Oath Commissioner. Thus, the bench held that the respondents had consciously arranged for notices to be returned with false endorsements, thereby attempting to evade the judicial process. The court concluded that respondents 1 and 2 had committed a deliberate and conscious breach of the temporary injunction order. The bench also rejected the plea that respondent no 3 was a bona fide purchaser. It was observed that the pendency of the appeal and injunction order was widely known in the village, and therefore, the purchaser could not claim ignorance of the court's directions. In view of the conduct of the parties, the court ordered that the properties mentioned in Schedules 2 and 3 of the plaint be attached. The Collector of Bhind was appointed as Receiver to take possession of the lands, oversee agricultural activities and deposit the profits earned from cultivation before the Trial Court until the dispute is finally resolved.The Collector was also directed to submit a possession report along with a panchnama before the Principal Registrar of the High Court by March 31, 2026. Additionally, the court further imposed a strict penalty on the respondents. Respondent No. 2, who violated the injunction within a month of obtaining it, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and directed to surrender before the Trial Court by March 18, 2026. The court also directed the Collector, Bhind, to remove the name of respondent no 3 from the revenue records and restore the previous status of the property within one month and to submit a compliance report to the court by April 20, 2026. Case Title: Ram Swaroop v Harimohan Singh [MCC-2141-2025]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 80For Applicants: Advocates Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi and Yadunath BhardwajFor Respondents 1 and 2: Advocates R.P. Singh and Pratip VisoriyaFor Respondents 3 to 5: Advocate G.P. ChaurasiaFor Respondent no 7: Government Advocate C.P. SinghClick here to read/download the Order

MP High Court Orders Civil Imprisonment Over Sale Of Disputed Land Despite Stay, Flags Advocate's Dual Role As Counsel & Co-Sharer

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags