the binding nature of the temporary injunction Order granted by the lower Court on the LRs. of the party, who suffered the Order as also the interpretation of Order 39 Rule 2(A) of Code of Civil Procedure.- 2015 A.P.[2003] MSKLAWREPORTS

The Appellants in A.S. No. 2301 of 1987 filed an application in C.M.P. No. 13578 of 1999 for injunction restraining Sharfuddin, Defendant No. 1 in the suit from alienating the 'B' schedule property. However, the Court granted Orders of status quo and the status quo Orders were made absolute on 15.10.1987.
While so, C.C. No. 1412 of 1997 was filed by the Appellants alleging contempt of the Orders dated: 15.5.1997 on the ground that on 11.4.1997 the respondent No. 6 and on 30.5.1997, the respondent No. 7 alienated 'B' schedule property by executing registered sale deeds. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were also bound by the status quo Orders passed by the Court against their father Sharfuddin. The petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that they are the LRs. of Sharfuddin that the property in question was already gifted to them by their father in 1981 and they sold the same to third parties in 1997. 
However, this Court observed that no contempt case would lie under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and left it open to the petitioners to convert the contempt application to that of application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure. 
Thereafter, petition in C.M.P. No. 19697 of 1997 purported to be under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure filed for punishing the respondents for alienating the scheduled properties and to detain them in civil prison for disobeying the Orders of the Appellate Court dated 15.10.1987 in C.M.P. No. 15518 of 1987 and C.M.P. No. 13575 of 1987 in A.S. No. 2301 of 1987. 
It was resisted by the L.Rs. stating that the property was gifted to them in January, 1981 prior to the suit was instituted and that the Order passed against their father is not binding and that there is no injunction Orders against them subsequent to their bringing on record as L.Rs.
The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties held that the respondents disobeyed the Orders and accordingly, directed the issuance of warrant for attachment of the property of the respondent Nos.3 to 7 for a period of six months or until such time the respondents deposit the sum of Rs.20,000/-. It is further directed that the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the same. Against the said Order, the present L.P.A. has been filed.
Admittedly, in the instant case, status quo orders were issued against the father and when an application was filed for punishing the father of the appellants for disobeying the status quo orders, he had stated that he had already gifted the 'B' schedule property to his sons and all the sons are making constructions. After the death of Sharfuddin, the appellants were brought on record. Thereafter application was filed for punishing the appellants for contempt. It was the case of the appellants in the application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs that the property in question was gifted by their father in 1981 and they have every right to proceed against the property. They further stated that they have also executed certain sale deeds in 1997 much after the status quo order was passed against their father. They further stated that the status quo order was confined to their father only and they are not bound by the status quo orders. It is not their case that they were not aware of the status quo orders passed against their father.
 At any rate, knowing fully well that there is specific order against their father, they have executed the sale deeds in respect of 'B' Schedule property.

though status quo order was granted against the father, yet the sons cannot be allowed to flout the status quo order which was granted against their father after they were brought on record as legal representatives. 

It is not the case of the appellants that they have parted with the property by executing sale deed prior to their bringing on record as legal representatives, but it is only after they were brought on record, they have parted with the property. Thus, it is clearly established that the appellants having full knowledge of the status quo order which was passed against their father, executed the sale deeds on the premise that the status quo orders would not in any way bind them.
Therefore, a person knowing fully well that an injunction order was passed against the defendant and still violates the injunction order irrespective of the fact whether he is a party to the injunction or not and commits violation of the order, is required to face the consequences under Rule 2-A of Order 39. - 

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

Consumer affairs, food & civil supplies - Bifurcation of fair shop in between two villages - Their lordships held that by itself would not offer justification for the respondents to bifurcate the petitioners fair price shop leaving it completely unviable. If the respondents feel that the essential commodities need to be distributed in the two Villages of Vaddepalli and Kondugaripalle, they can direct the petitioner to arrange such distribution in those Villages on particular days by paying transportation expenses to her.- Writ allowed - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports