Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action

“Mere Spot Inspection Report Cannot Replace Judicial Enquiry Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC”, In a significant order emphasizing judicial discipline and proper enquiry in cases of alleged violation of injunction orders, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a trial court cannot avoid conducting a proper enquiry by merely forwarding a spot inspection report without recording evidence of witnesses.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, while deciding Ashok Kumar & Others v. Smt. Meera Devi on 17 February 2026, observed that the trial court completely failed to comply with the High Court’s earlier directions requiring an enquiry into alleged violation of a status quo order. The Court held that the approach adopted by the trial judge was legally unsustainable and directed a fresh enquiry by another Civil Judge, while also recommending disciplinary action against the concerned judicial officer.

“Alleged Construction Despite Status Quo Order Required Proper Judicial Enquiry”

The case arose from a petition filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging breach of an interim order passed by the High Court on 15 March 2013 in Second Appeal No.106/2013, which had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the disputed property.

The applicants alleged that despite the subsisting status quo order, the respondent started raising construction on the disputed property, thereby violating the High Court’s directions.

Since the respondent denied the allegation, the High Court had earlier passed an order on 04 April 2024 directing the trial court to conduct a proper enquiry and record evidence to determine whether the interim order had been violated.

However, despite repeated reminders and extensions granted by the High Court, the trial court did not conduct any enquiry.

“Trial Court Failed To Record Evidence Or Hear Parties”

The High Court found that instead of conducting the enquiry as directed, the trial court merely obtained a spot inspection report from the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department and forwarded it to the High Court.

The Court held that such an approach was contrary to the directions issued earlier.

Justice Ahluwalia observed:

“The trial Court has merely obtained a spot inspection report from the Executive Engineer PWD and did not conduct any enquiry as directed by this Court.”

The Court further noted that the parties were not even heard during the process, and no evidence of witnesses was recorded to determine whether the injunction order had been breached.

The judgment emphasized that a proper enquiry under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC requires examination of evidence and determination of facts, which was completely absent in the present case.

“Trial Court Showed Lethargic Attitude Despite Repeated Directions”

The High Court also took serious note of the delay and lack of compliance by the trial court.

It was pointed out that the enquiry was required to be completed within four months from April 2024, yet even after more than one and a half years the trial court failed to conduct the enquiry.

The Court remarked that the trial judge had “given a complete go-by to the directions given by this Court.”

The trial judge later submitted an explanation and tendered an apology for the lapse. However, the High Court found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting that no justification was given for the failure to record evidence of witnesses before submitting the report.

“Judicial Officer’s Conduct Requires Disciplinary Enquiry”

Taking serious note of the negligence, the High Court directed that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice through the Registrar General for considering disciplinary action against the concerned judicial officer.

The Court observed that the conduct of the trial judge in ignoring the High Court’s directions and keeping the matter pending for an extended period required administrative scrutiny.

The order directed that copies of relevant documents, including the enquiry report, the explanation submitted by the judge, and the High Court’s orders, be forwarded to the Registrar General for further action.

“Fresh Enquiry To Be Conducted By Another Civil Judge”

Since the earlier enquiry was found to be defective, the High Court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind to assign the matter to another Civil Judge for conducting a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that the new court must not rely upon the earlier spot inspection report obtained by the trial court, as it appeared to have been conducted in the absence of the parties.

However, liberty was granted to appoint a Local Commissioner for spot inspection, provided that the inspection is conducted in the presence of the parties.

The High Court directed that:

“The Court to whom the enquiry shall be assigned shall complete the enquiry within a period of four months.”

The parties were also directed to appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind on 17 March 2026 for further proceedings.

Conclusion

The ruling underscores the mandatory obligation of subordinate courts to strictly comply with directions issued by the High Court.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that determination of violation of injunction orders requires a proper judicial enquiry involving recording of evidence, and cannot be replaced by administrative reports or spot inspection documents.

Date of Decision: 17 February 2026