Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports



filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting
police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be
implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it.
In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the
injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged
his quarry
It is the case of the respondents that
they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction
is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to
implement the order of this Court."
 the Court below granted the police aid
aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed

However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex
parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police
aid to enforce that order. 
 Under the guise of an order of ad-interim injunction
and also the corresponding police aid granted there may be a possibility of
vacating from the property in the litigation a person who is in actual
possession of the property as of right. 
Therefore, whenever such order of
granting police aid is resisted it is advisable to hear both the parties to the
litigation and dispose of the petition filed for interim injunction pending
disposal of the main proceedings itself. 
 Further some times question of
identity of the property in dispute arises.  Thereby unless there is clear
identity of the property in dispute mere granting of Police aid would not be
suffice.   
In such case, an Advocate Commissioner is to be appointed necessarily
to localize the property and only subject to the localization of the properties,
necessary Police aid can be granted or both the Police aid and localization of
the property can be granted s

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)