Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the appellant aggrieved by an order of status quo till 11-6-2003 granted in I.A.No.447/2003 in O.S.No.142 of 2003 dated 30-5-2003 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge is maintainable with out following the regular procedure ? - Yes - Moving regular court too is not a bar for maintaining this appeal - 2015 A.P.(2003) MSKLAWREPORTS - http://mskpublications.blogspot.in/



Division Bench already held 
        "It is clear that under O.43, R.1(r), the right of appeal given to the
affected party is not only against a final order of injunction passed by the
lower Court after hearing both the parties under R.4 of O.39 but also against an
ex parte order of injunction passed by the lower court under O.39 R.1 without
hearing the affected party.     Normal judicial machinery for correction of ex
parte orders is the original Court itself.  But under O.43, R.1(r) the injuncted
party can go to an appellate Court against an ex parte order even without first
going before the original Court.  So long as the statute has so willed the
Courts should give effect to that expression of the legislative will,
particularly in the case of remedy by way of an appeal".

Conclusion 

 The order of status quo granted in the present case is an order passed by
the Vacation Civil Judge in exercise of his powers under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
of the Code and even as against such an ex parte order, a Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal lies to this Court only.
 Hence, in view of the
legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal as against an order of status quo made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of
the Code is perfectly maintainable.
NO Bar to move regular court
It is no doubt true that the appellant
could have as well moved the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for
vacating the order, but for the reasons explained in the affidavit filed in
support of the application before this Court and in view of the urgency, the
appellant thought of preferring the present Appeal.  - 2015 A.P.(2003) MSKLAWREPORTS - http://mskpublications.blogspot.in/

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

ACT: Civil Procedure Code. 1908: Section 64 and Order 21 Rule 57Attachment order--Execution petition or suit in which attachment ordered dismissed--Restoration of such proceed- ings--Whether attachment revived--Alienation of attached property--Whether affected. -An order of restoration of a suit dismissed for default would certainly restore or revive the attachment for the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior to the dismissal of the suit or execution application. In the present case both transactions, sale by the judgment-debtor and subsequent sale by the purchaser to the respondents, were effected during the subsistence of the attachment and before the Title Execution Case was dismissed for default. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in taking the view that by reason of the dismissal of the said Title Execution Case, the attachment came to an end and the order of restoration of the said case would not affect any alienations made before the restoration, although such alienations might have been made during the subsistence of the attachment. -2015 S.C.(1987) msklawreports

The appellant filed a petition for execution of the money decree obtained by her in High Court against the judgment-debtor and attachment was levied in execution on open land and a portion of the premises in question belong- ing to the judgment-debtor. Subsequently, the judgment- debtor sold a portion of the attached property. The purchas- er in turn, sold a portion thereof to the respondents. The aforesaid execution petition was dismissed for default but later on an application by the appellant, the said Execution Case was restored, and the said property was again attached, and a proclamation for sale of the said property was issued under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents' petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of C.P.C. for releasing the property purchased by the respondents from attachment was dismissed. The High Court allowed the appeal. In appeal to this Court, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that in vi...
Read more