Or.39, rule 1&2 C.P.C - Interlocutory Application for interim injunction in a suit for bare injunction suit - The defence is that there is no property left by the plaintiff's husband for claiming injunction basing on alleged possession and on alleged documents - lower court made absolute the exparte interim injunction order - Appellant court reversed the order as there is cloud over the title of plaintiff and so the bare injunction with out declaration is not maintainable - Their lordships held that As the suit O.S. No.93 of 2011, pending for more than three years for trial and thereby keeping these facts in view and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, if at all to invoke for appointment of a receiver or Commissioner to protect the subject matter of the lis if need be pending trial to consider on own merits as part of the conditions the trial Court can impose by virtue of the lower appellate Courts order setting aside the interim order granted by the trial Court and the terms that to be imposed are not final but for change from time to time for imposing any terms or conditions including by taking property if necessary as a cusdia legis and entrust to a Commissioner or Receiver if not to plaintiffs or the defendants being entrusted as party Receiver to deposit the income therefrom or the receiver to manage. .- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 9

Or.39, rule 1&2 C.P.C - Interlocutory Application for interim injunction in a suit for bare injunction suit - The defence is that there is no property left by the plaintiff's husband for claiming injunction basing on alleged possession and on alleged documents - lower court made absolute the exparte interim injunction order - Appellant court reversed the order as there is cloud over the title of plaintiff and so the bare injunction with out declaration is not maintainable - 
Their Lordships held that  Importantly in M.Gurudas V. Rasaranjan  it was held, while saying all the three conditions must be made out, at para Nos.9 and 10 observed on what is meant by prima facie case that it is a finding of fact of each case for that not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out; but also that there is a serious question to be tried and the claim is not frivolous or vexatious,
and further held that whether the suit for bare injunction maintainable or remedy is to seek for declaration being the efficacious relief to clear the cloud on title.  No doubt mere contention of the defendant is not suffice to non suit the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction but for from material on record shows if not even from plaint averments, from ultimate analysis any cloud on title to non suit the claim for bare injunction vide Saraswathi V. Dr.Jaganmohana Rao 
and further held that  As the suit O.S. No.93 of 2011, pending for more than three years for trial and thereby keeping these facts in view and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, if at all to invoke for appointment of a receiver or Commissioner to protect the subject matter of the lis if need be pending trial to consider on own merits as part of the conditions the trial Court can impose by virtue of the lower appellate Courts order setting aside the interim order granted by the trial Court and the terms that to be imposed are not final but for change from time to time for imposing any terms or conditions including by taking property if necessary as a cusdia legis and entrust to a Commissioner or Receiver if not to plaintiffs or the defendants being entrusted as party Receiver to deposit the income therefrom or the receiver to manage.  Thus, besides need to pass such orders supra or not to consider, not at cost of postponing trial, but while proceeding with the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit atleast within three months from the date of receipt of
order by giving priority in disposal and by conducting day to day trial as contemplated by Order XVII C.P.C.  This direction is to subserve the ends of justice and in consonance with the
expression of this Court in Saraswathi supra besides earlier expression of Nawab Mir Barkat Alikhan supra and also other expressions including of the Apex Court subsequently and the quote from Halsburys laws of England referred supra thereto in this regard.  There shall be no order as to costs.- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 9

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

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)

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