Or.2 , Rule 2 of C.P.C -First suit for bare injunction as there was threat and second suit for specific performance as the defendant is going to sale to third party - No Or.2, rule 2 - No Relinquishment of right - No bar for filing a second suit with out permission as both are not one and same =2015 S.C.(10/2014) MSKLAWREPORTS 17

In the instant case, as  discussed  above,  suit  for  injunction  was filed since there was threat  given  from  the  side  of  the  defendant  to dispossess him from the suit property.  The plaintiff did  not  allege  that the defendant is threatening to alienate  or  transfer  the  property  to  a third party in order to frustrate the agreement. It is well settled that the ratio of any decision must  be  understood in the background of the facts of that case.  The following  words  of  Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedence have been locus classicus.  “Each case depends on its own facts and  a  close  similarity  between  one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail  may alter the entire aspect, in  deciding  such  cases,  one  should  avoid  the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching  the  colour  of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on  which  side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case  is  not  at all decisive.” -2015 S.C.(10/2014) MSKLAWREPORTS 17

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)