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".


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

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

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