Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Inquiry Against Trial Judge For Persistent Non-Compliance With High Court Orders
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, has directed an inquiry into the conduct of a trial court judge for persistent non-compliance with High Court orders. Despite repeated directions over nearly two years to conduct a proper evidentiary inquiry, the trial court merely obtained a spot inspection report from a government engineer without recording witness testimony or reaching any conclusion on whether the injunction had been breached. The Court observed that while obtaining a spot inspection may have been appropriate, it could not substitute for evidence-based proceedings, and the matter had been kept pending for an unreasonably long period. Accordingly, the Court forwarded the matter to the Registrar General for placing before the Chief Justice for consideration of appropriate disciplinary action.
The applicants filed a Miscellaneous Civil Case under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging defiance of an interim order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the High Court directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to a disputed property. The applicants contended that despite the said order, the respondent had commenced construction over the disputed property in violation of the status quo direction.
Since the question of breach required enquiry and evidence, a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court by order dated 04.04.2024 directed the trial Court to conduct an enquiry into the alleged violation, with parties directed to appear in person and the enquiry to be completed within four months. Despite multiple follow-up orders passed on 08.10.2025 and 12.11.2025, the enquiry report was not received, and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind was directed to issue instructions to the trial Court.
It subsequently came to light that the trial Court had not conducted any enquiry as directed, but had instead obtained a spot inspection report from the Executive Engineer, PWD, and forwarded it directly to the High Court without routing it through the Principal District and Sessions Judge. It was also brought to the Court's notice that parties had not been heard. A detailed enquiry report was thereafter received from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, which found the trial Judge negligent in discharging duties. The trial Judge tendered an apology, which was not found satisfactory.
The Court at the outset recorded that the trial Judge had given a complete go-by to the directions issued by the High Court. Upon examining the conduct of the trial Court, the Court stated: "Thus, it is clear that 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 by order dated 04.04.2024."
On the inadequacy of the explanation tendered by the trial Judge, the Court recorded that the explanation was not satisfactory because the trial Judge had not assigned any reasons for not recording the evidence of witnesses before submitting the report. The Court further observed: "Although the trial Court might be right in obtaining spot inspection report, but that report should have been considered after recording evidence of witnesses and the trial Court should have come to a conclusion as to whether temporary injunction order was breached by any of the parties or not, but nothing of that sort has been done."
The Court also noted that the trial Court had kept the matter pending for a considerably long time. It further stated that the trial Court had forwarded the report directly to the High Court, which: "did not give any opportunity to Principal District and Sessions Judge to go through the report and to find out as to whether the report is in accordance with order issued by this Court or not."
On the question of routing of reports, the Court recorded: "Furthermore, on multiple ocassions, it has been held by this Court that whenever any report is sent by the trial Court, it must route through the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the concerning district."
On the overall conduct, the Court stated: "Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that conduct of the trial Judge requires an enquiry."
The Court directed: "Accordingly, Office is directed to send photocopy of all the order-sheets of this Court, copy of enquiry report dated 31/1/2026 submitted by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, explanation given by concerning Judge on 30/1/2026, as well as, PUD dated 31/10/2025 to the Registrar General of this Court for placing before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary information as well as for any disciplinary action, if required against said Officer or not."
"Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind is directed to assign this case to some other Civil Judge so that the enquiry can be conducted as per the directions given by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 4/4/2024."
"Parties are directed to remain present before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind on 17/3/2026 so that the parties may be informed about the Court by whom enquiry will be conducted. In case if any of the parties fail to appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind on 17/3/2026, then no further notice shall be required to be issued to such absentee and it shall be presumed that the absentee has nothing to say in the matter."
"The Court to whom the enquiry shall be assigned by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four months and the Court shall not rely upon the report of Executive Engineer, PWD which was sent by the trial Court on earlier occasion because the said spot inspection appears to have been done in the absence of parties."
"List this case on 20/8/2026 for consideration of enquiry report (because of summer vacations, this Court has deliberately excluded a period of one month)."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Applicants: Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate
Case Title: Ashok Kumar and Others v. Smt. Meera Devi
Case Number: MCC No. 39 of 2022
Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
