Or.39, rule 3 A C.P.C . an application filed to furnish security as by obtaining interim injunction orders , the plaintiff is enjoying his property with out paying any rents/charges to him - pending disposal of suit , this petition to furnish security for Rs.29.45 lakhs - Trial court returned the same as it holds no pecuniary jurisdiction and to present the same before proper court - Their Lordships held that no application is maintainable pending suit under Or.39, rule 3 A as under this rule court only has got power suo motu to direct the party who obtained interim injunction to furnish security - and as such their lordships further held that Therefore, the Court below is directed to determine the damages payable to the petitioner - defendant towards injury and loss sustained by the petitioner - defendant by virtue of the grant of temporary injunction and call upon the respondent - plaintiff to furnish security.Therefore, after disposal of the suit, on application made by the petitioner - defendant, compensation may be awarded, if the Court below comes to the conclusion that the petitioner - defendant has sustained injury or loss, by virtue of the above said injunction. - 2015 A.P.(2002) MSKLAWREPORTS - http://mskpublications.blogspot.in/


The respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction
restraining the petitioner - defendant and his agents from removing and
interfering with the erection of hoardings and electrical fittings and
maintenance thereof and they also filed I.A. No. 913 of 1995 for interim
injunction for the same relief during pendency of the suit under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 of the Code which was accordingly ordered on 13.7.1995 by the Court below
and the respondent - plaintiff is carrying on the business of displaying and
advertising the products of its customers. It is alleged that under the guise of
interim injunction, the respondent - plaintiff has given a go bye to its
obligations under the said agreement to pay monthly charges to the petitioner
and thus the respondent - plaintiff has committed breach of agreement. It is
also averred that using the suit property for hoarding beyond the period of the
agreement, without paying of the agreed charges, is nothing but abuse of the
process of law and depriving the rights of the petitioner - defendant.
Therefore, the defendant filed the instant petition under Order 39 Rule 3-A of
the Code to determine damages payable to the petitioner - defendant
The said application was filed by the plaintiff herein
under Order 39 Rule 3-A (A.P. High Court Amendment in 1959) read with Sec. 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity the Code), to determine and call
upon the respondent - plaintiff to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 29.45
lakhs as damages for the loss and injury sustained by the petitioner by reason
of the interim injunction obtained by the respondent - plaintiff in IA No. 913
of 1995.
Trial court returned the application to present before proper court

While returning the said application, the Court below has observed that
it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain such application and even it has
got pecuniary jurisdiction the application can be entertained only on payment of
required Court fee for the relief sought for by the petitioner on the value
which he claimed as damages.
The said application if entertained, it will ousts
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. It was further observed that under Rule
3A of Order 39 of the Code, the said application has to be made and damages be
determined after disposal of the suit.

Their Lordships held 

   Sec.95 of C.P.C. -
     A bare reading of this provision, makes it clear that when the plaintiff
has obtained an order of arrest, attachment or injunction against the defendant
and it appears to the Court that he obtained such an order on insufficient
grounds or that where the suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears to the
Court that there was no reasonable or probable ground for instituting the same,
on application made by the defendant, the Court may, on such application, award
compensation not exceeding Rs.50,000/- which it deems as reasonable compensation
to the defendant for the expenses including injury to reputation. The said
ceiling of Rs.50,000/- was enhanced from Rs.1,000/- by way of Amendment Act,
1999.
Or.25, rule 2 C.P.C
So according to Rule 2 of Order 25 of the Code, when the plaintiff does not
furnish security within time fixed by the Court, the Court is empowered to
dismiss the suit.
Or.39, rule 3 A C.P.C.
"...3-A: In any case where a temporary injunction is granted the Court, may, at
the time of the order, or at any time during the pendency of the injunction,
call upon the applicant to furnish security for the amount of damages that the
Court may determine as payable by the party obtaining the injunction to the
other party as compensation for any injury or loss that may be sustained by the
latter by reason of the injunction.
3-B: The Court, shall, on application made after the disposal of the suit,
determine the amount payable under Rule 3-A and make an order awarding it to the
applicant..."

As can be seen from Rule 3-A, it is only for the Court, on
its own motion at the time of granting injunction or during the pendency of the
injunction, call upon the applicant to furnish security;
but whereas under
Order 25 Rule 2, the Court can either on its own motion or on the application of the
defendant, order the plaintiff to give security.
Same is the position under Section 95 of the Code.
   Therefore, in the present case, the I.A.(SR) filed under Rule 3-A is not
maintainable for the reason that Rule 3-A does not contemplate filing of
application by a party to determine the damages .
But not for the reasons stated by the Trial Court
 Therefore, the Court below is directed to
determine the damages payable to the petitioner - defendant towards injury and
loss sustained by the petitioner - defendant by virtue of the grant of temporary
injunction and call upon the respondent - plaintiff to furnish security.
Therefore, after disposal of the suit, on application made by the petitioner -
defendant, compensation may be awarded, if the Court below comes to the
conclusion that the petitioner - defendant has sustained injury or loss, by
virtue of the above said injunction. - 2015 A.P.(2002) 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

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)

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