NON EXECUTING THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER WARRANT FOR EXAMINATION OF EXPERT DUE TO SMAKHYA ANDHRA STRIKE - NOT SUFFICIENT REASON the Supreme Court held: "....When the advocate who was engaged by a party was on strike there is no obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that count...." In view of the above noted authoritative pronouncements, irrespective of the cause, the lawyers cannot go on strike. Therefore, the plea that because of the lawyers' strike, the Advocate-Commissioner could not execute warrant cannot be countenanced in law. By staying away from the work, the Court was left with no option other than directing return of the warrant by the Advocate- Commissioner. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong in the approach of the lower Court or any error in the orders passed by it, which are the subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition. If the petitioner has suffered any damage on account of the return of the warrant by the Advocate-Commissioner, he shall be free to claim such damages from his Advocate as well as the Advocate- Commissioner by initiating appropriate proceedings. Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

NON EXECUTING THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER WARRANT FOR EXAMINATION OF EXPERT DUE TO SMAKHYA ANDHRA STRIKE - NOT SUFFICIENT REASON 

the Supreme  
Court held:
"....When the advocate who was engaged by a party was on strike there is no
obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on
that count...."

        In view of the above noted authoritative pronouncements, irrespective of
the cause, the lawyers cannot go on strike.  Therefore, the plea that because of
the lawyers' strike, the Advocate-Commissioner could not execute warrant cannot
be countenanced in law.  By staying away from the work, the Court was left with
no option other than directing return of the warrant by the Advocate-
Commissioner.  Therefore, I do not find anything wrong in the approach of the
lower Court or any error in the orders passed by it, which are the subject
matter of this Civil Revision Petition.  If the petitioner has suffered any
damage on account of the return of the warrant by the Advocate-Commissioner, he
shall be free to claim such damages from his Advocate as well as the Advocate-
Commissioner by initiating appropriate proceedings.
        Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Civil
Revision Petition is disposed of.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

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