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

Consumer affairs, food & civil supplies - Bifurcation of fair shop in between two villages - Their lordships held that by itself would not offer justification for the respondents to bifurcate the petitioners fair price shop leaving it completely unviable. If the respondents feel that the essential commodities need to be distributed in the two Villages of Vaddepalli and Kondugaripalle, they can direct the petitioner to arrange such distribution in those Villages on particular days by paying transportation expenses to her.- Writ allowed - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

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