The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while hearing a contempt-related application, has ordered an inquiry into the conduct of a trial judge for failing to comply with its earlier directions regarding an investigation into an alleged violation of a status quo order in a property dispute.
The bench observed that the trial court had not conducted the inquiry as directed and had instead relied solely on a spot inspection report without recording evidence or hearing the parties.
Read also:- Madras High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Says Failure to Prove Victim’s Age Fatally Weakens Prosecution
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with disobedience of injunction orders.
The applicants alleged that despite an order passed on March 15, 2013, directing both parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property, the respondents began construction at the site.
Due to the dispute over whether the interim order had actually been violated, the High Court in April 2024 directed the trial court to conduct a detailed inquiry. The court also ordered that the parties should appear personally before the trial court and that the inquiry should be completed within four months.
However, the High Court later found that the inquiry report had not been submitted even after significant time had passed.
Repeated Directions From the High Court
When the report was not received, the High Court passed further orders in October 2025, directing the trial court to immediately send the inquiry report. Later, in November 2025, the court expressed displeasure over the delay and extended the deadline while directing the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind to ensure compliance.
The court had also warned that the trial court’s “lethargic attitude” would be taken seriously if the inquiry was not completed within the stipulated period.
Despite these directions, the trial court sent only a spot inspection report obtained from the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department (PWD) instead of conducting a proper inquiry.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that the trial court had failed to follow its explicit instructions.
“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 bench observed.
The court further pointed out that no evidence of witnesses had been recorded, nor had the parties been heard before sending the report. According to the bench, while obtaining a spot inspection report could be helpful, it should have been considered only after proper evidence was recorded.
The High Court also criticized the prolonged delay, noting that the matter remained pending for a considerable period without any meaningful progress.
Inquiry Into Trial Judge’s Conduct
After receiving a detailed report from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, the High Court found that the trial judge had been negligent in performing his duties. Although the judge submitted an explanation and tendered an apology, the court said the explanation was unsatisfactory because no reasons were provided for failing to record witness statements before submitting the report.
“The conduct of the trial Judge requires an enquiry,” the court stated.
Accordingly, the High Court directed its office to send copies of the order sheets, the inquiry report dated January 31, 2026, and the trial judge’s explanation to the Registrar General of the High Court for placing before the Chief Justice for appropriate action, including possible disciplinary proceedings.
Fresh Inquiry Ordered
Since the earlier inquiry was not conducted properly, the High Court ordered that the matter be reassigned to another Civil Judge for a fresh investigation.
The court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, to allocate the case to a different judicial officer so that the inquiry could be conducted strictly in accordance with the High Court’s earlier directions.
The parties were instructed to appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge on March 17, 2026, when they would be informed about the court assigned to conduct the inquiry.
The High Court further directed that the new court must complete the inquiry within four months and should not rely on the earlier PWD spot inspection report, as it appeared to have been conducted in the absence of the parties.
The court also granted liberty to appoint a local commissioner for site inspection if necessary, ensuring that the inspection takes place on a scheduled date in the presence of the parties.
The matter has been listed for August 20, 2026, for consideration of the inquiry report.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar & Others v. Smt. Meera Devi
Case No.: MCC No. 39 of 2022
Decision Date: 17 February 2026
