The principle that in the event of restoration of suit dismissed for default all the interim orders would revive has no application in a case like this because ad interim injunction was never in force as on the date of filing the appeal. - 2015 A.P.(2002) MSKLAWREPORTS

 The principle that in the event of restoration of suit dismissed for default all the interim orders would revive has no application in a case like this because ad interim injunction was never in force as on the date of filing the appeal. - 2015 A.P.(2002) MSKLAWREPORTS
In the considered opinion of this Court no error much less grave error occasioning any failure of justice has crept into the impugned order. Be it noted that a civil court, though is competent to pass an ad interim injunction without giving notice duly recording reasons as contemplated under proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the Code, by reason of rule 3A of the said Order the civil court is bound to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days from the date on which injunction was granted and if it is not possible to do so, the civil court shall have to record its reasons for its inability to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days from the date of grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Admittedly in this case ad interim injunction was granted on 22.9.1999 and even before expiry of 30 days on 21.10.1999, the APSRTC entered appearance and made its submissions on 15.10.1999. As already noticed, the interlocutory application was dismissed on 10.11.1999 which was restored by the appellate Judge. It is clear that from 10.11.1999 till disposal of C.M.A. No. 22 of 1999 there was no injunction in favour of the petitioner nor ad interim ex parte injunction was in force which admittedly expired on 21.10.1999. In view of this it cannot be said that the District Judge has committed any error. 
The principle that in the event of restoration of suit dismissed for default all the interim orders would revive has no application in a case like this because ad interim injunction was never in force as on the date of filing the appeal. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. - 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