Or.39, rule 1 & 2 & 2 A – interim injunction – willfully violated – overnight destroyed the quarter of plaintiff by throwing out all his household articles – pleaded that some third persons demolished – liable for punishment =2015 A.P.(2002)MSKLAWREPORTS

 It has to be observed that this Court while admitting the CRP on 22.3.2002 granted interim order suspending the orders of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in CMA No. 16 of 2002. However, it was clarified by this Court that the petitioner herein shall not act as a Pastor of the church in question as directed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District. The above interim order passed by this Court was communicated by way of Telegram by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the respondents. The facts go to show that later the quarter of the petitioner in the compound of the church in question was demolished only thereafter. According to the petitioner, the demolition took place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.00 pm. by the respondents herein with the help of 20 other members. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have behaved unruly on 23.3.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. in all probability after the receipt of the said Telegram orders and the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, L.B.Nagar and a certified copy of the telegram was filed as one of the material papers. According to the petitioner, the demolition did take place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. However, the respondents have lodged a complaint to the police on 25.3.2002 at 22.20 hours i.e., at about 10.20 p.m. in the night stating that in the morning of 25.3.2002 some unknown persons have demolished the residential quarter of the Pastor in question.

The next contention urged on behalf of the respondents/contemnors is that the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It has to be observed that the complaint was lodged at 10.20 p.m. on 25.3.2002. Even the stand of the first respondent in the counter as well as in the affidavit that he was not present on 25.3.2002 is accepted, it is not known how he could lodge a complaint on 25.3.2002 at 10.20 p.m. Thus, the contention of the first respondent that he was not present on that day is only after thought. Respondents 2 to 5 have also filed affidavits, which are stereotype in nature, stating that they were also not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It is not stated in the affidavits that on what work and to which place they have gone leaving the Church premises for those three days. The respondents merely stated that they were not present and they left for religious propagation. It is highly difficult to presume that all the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 and the absence of all the contemnors from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 shows that to escape from the liability of contempt they were intentionally absent from the Church and their intentional absence has paved the way to the strangers to demolish the Pastor's residence by entering into church compound and their absence is only to circumvent the orders of this Court passed in CMP No. 5 810 of 2002 dated 22.3.2002. =

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