No Exparte interim Injunction order can be given till disposal of main O.P./SUIT with out hearing the parties - order is liable to be set aside as it is gross miscarriage of justice -2015 A.P.[2013]MSKLAWREPORTS

It cannot therefore be doubted that the Principal District Judge, Ongole, had the power to grant interim relief pending the OP. However, such interim relief could be made absolute so as to be continued till the final disposal of the OP only after hearing all the parties concerned. In the present case, though the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole, captioned the order as an ad-interim injunction, he directed that it should continue till the disposal and final result of the main SROP. The hearing date given thereafter merely indicated that the SROP was to be heard on that date. The interim relief granted was declared to be of a final and enduring nature till the conclusion of the OP. Though it is contended on behalf of the first respondent that this was merely a mistake in the order, this Court is not impressed. The words used in the order undeniably indicate its final nature though it was stated to be an ad-interim injunction. In any event, such lapses are not expected of the Principal Civil Court of the district. Thus, the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole, clearly committed a gross error of jurisdiction by overstepping the limits prescribed by law for granting interim relief and acted in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure and the principles of natural justice. Given these circumstances, this Court would be justified in entertaining this writ petition to prevent a miscarriage of justice.-2015 A.P.[2013]MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

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