Or.39, rule 1 &2 C.P.C- interim injunction - not vacated - closed - amounts to closing for statistical purpose - not mean that interim injunction is vacated - injunction is pending = 2015 A.P.(2005) MSKLAWREPORTS

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Interlocutory Application is closed or closure of Interlocutory Application tantamount to an order of dismissal for vacating the order of ad-interim injunction. Therefore, the Respondent No. 4 is not permitted to alienate the suit property. After considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court though the word 'closed' is not used in the Civil Procedure Code for statistical purpose but the Courts are using the words "closed". Therefore it does not mean closure of Interlocutory Application for statistical purpose amounts to vacating the order of ad-interim injunction or dismissing the Interlocutory Application as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that we have to see the substance of the order passed by the Court below. In the present case, it is appropriate to consider the dictum of the Apex Court in Pentapati China Venkanna and Ors. v. Pentapati Bangararaju and Ors., referred supra, the intention of the trial Judge is that the revision petitioner has to undergo imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. But when the matter carried in appeal, the appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case came to a conclusion that sending the revision petitioner (R4) to the civil prison for a month is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Actually the revision petitioner has to be send to the civil prison for three months but the appellate Court restricted and fixed the period of imprisonment in civil prison is for one month. For all the above reasons, I do not see any illegality in passing the said order. The CRP accordingly fails, however, taking into consideration the age of the revision petitioner (R4), I deem it appropriate to reduce the period of imprisonment in civil prison to fifteen days. Moreover, the main case is posted for trial and for which both parties are ready to adduce evidence. In the circumstances, I hope that the disposal of the suit may not take much time inasmuch as the trial Judge had therefore closed the Interlocutory application. However, the intention of the Court below is not to vacate the ad-interim injunction already granted or dismissing of the Interlocutory application but it is closed for statistical purpose. Thus, the intention of the Court below can be viewed that the ad-interim injunction granted on 4-2-1997 is pending operation.

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)