Sec.151 - Or.39, rule 1 &2 - interim injunction - implementation of orders - Inherent powers can be invoked for granting Police Aid = When there is no specific provision of law which is sufficient to implement the order of temporary injunction or the decree for perpetual injunction granted by the court, we do not see why the provisions of Section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked for the said purpose to render justice or to redress the wrong, because, the courts should not only have the power to pass an order, but also should have the power to implement the said order. Therefore, when a party has obtained an order of temporary injunction from a court under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code and the other party against whom the order of injunction is passed disobeys the same, the aggrieved party can certainly approach the court invoking the power of the court under Section 151 and pray for police aid for the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction. When it is brought to the notice of the court that the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151, can direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the enforcement of the order of the injunction granted by the court in order to render complete justice. It must be remembered, by ordering police help to the party who has obtained an order of temporary injunction, the court merely takes the follow-up steps to implement its earlier order of injunction. In appropriate cases, where the court finds that a party who had secured an order of injunction from the court is not in a position to have its full benefit owing either to obstruction or non-co-operation of the other side, it is always open to the court to direct the police authorities to see that its order is obeyed. Admittedly, ad interim injunction orders were granted in favour of respondents on 09.04.2010 in I.A. No. 119 of 2010. Although a counter affidavit in that IA had been filed by petitioners herein in July, 2010, the said order had not been vacated. 22. I.A. No. 150 of 2011 was filed by respondents in August, 2011 alleging violation of the ad interim injunction orders. Admittedly, no counter-affidavit was filed by petitioners herein in I.A. No. 150 of 2011 in spite of several opportunities being given to them. So, the allegations made by the respondents against petitioners in I.A. No. 150 of 2011 stood uncontroverted. The respondents had even given police complaints which evoked no response from the police. Even though the order of injunction was passed in I.A. No. 119 of 2010 at an interlocutory stage, it was unambiguous and was in force for almost a year and had not been vacated. Therefore, the Court below, after waiting till 03.09.2012 (almost one year after filing of the I.A. No. 150 of 2011), was right in treating that there is no counter on behalf of the petitioners in I.A. No. 150 of 2011, that the allegations made therein were not denied. It rightly allowed it, taking notice of the urgency expressed by the respondents and their submission of interference by the petitioners in violation of the injunction order granted by the Court. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the Court below in allowing I.A. No. 150 of 2011.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.151 - Or.39, rule 1 &2 - interim injunction - implementation of orders - Inherent powers can be invoked for granting Police Aid =
When there is no specific provision of law which is
sufficient to implement the order of temporary injunction or the
decree for perpetual injunction granted by the court, we do not see
why the provisions of Section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked for
the said purpose to render justice or to redress the wrong, because,
the courts should not only have the power to pass an order, but also
should have the power to implement the said order. Therefore, when
a party has obtained an order of temporary injunction from a court
under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code and the other party against
whom the order of injunction is passed disobeys the same, the
aggrieved party can certainly approach the court invoking the power
of the court under Section 151 and pray for police aid for the
enforcement of the order of temporary injunction. When it is brought
to the notice of the court that the enforcement of the order of
temporary injunction is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the
court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151, can direct
the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the
enforcement of the order of the injunction granted by the court in
order to render complete justice. It must be remembered, by
ordering police help to the party who has obtained an order of
temporary injunction, the court merely takes the follow-up steps to
implement its earlier order of injunction. In appropriate cases, where
the court finds that a party who had secured an order of injunction
from the court is not in a position to have its full benefit owing either
to obstruction or non-co-operation of the other side, it is always open
to the court to direct the police authorities to see that its order is
obeyed. 

Admittedly, ad interim injunction orders were granted in favour
of respondents on 09.04.2010 in I.A. No. 119 of 2010. Although a
counter affidavit in that IA had been filed by petitioners herein in
July, 2010, the said order had not been vacated.
22. I.A. No. 150 of 2011 was filed by respondents in August, 2011
alleging violation of the ad interim injunction orders. Admittedly, no
counter-affidavit was filed by petitioners herein in I.A. No. 150 of
2011 in spite of several opportunities being given to them. So, the
allegations made by the respondents against petitioners in I.A. No.
150 of 2011 stood uncontroverted. The respondents had even given
police complaints which evoked no response from the police. Even
though the order of injunction was passed in I.A. No. 119 of 2010 at
an interlocutory stage, it was unambiguous and was in force for
almost a year and had not been vacated. Therefore, the Court below,
after waiting till 03.09.2012 (almost one year after filing of the I.A.
No. 150 of 2011), was right in treating that there is no counter on
behalf of the petitioners in I.A. No. 150 of 2011, that the allegations
made therein were not denied. It rightly allowed it, taking notice of
the urgency expressed by the respondents and their submission of
interference by the petitioners in violation of the injunction order
granted by the Court. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the
action of the Court below in allowing I.A. No. 150 of 2011.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

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)