2017 - A.P.DIGEST - JUNE 2


Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - granting interim injunction against sub registrar who is not a party to the suit - No interim injunction exparte can be granted against third party to the suit-
Even in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdary and Others
(6th supra), the Apex Court made it clear that the injunction cannot
be granted against the person who is not a party to the proceedings,
but the Tribunal observed that in the utmost necessity the court can
grant an interim order even before impleading the person against
whom the interim order is sought for.   It is not the law declared by
the Apex court, but it is an observation made by the Tribunal.  Even
otherwise, it is for the court to record reasons that there is an utmost
necessity to grant an interim injunction, before impleading a person
against whom the interim order was sought for. But here the order is
bereft of any reasons to conclude that there is utmost necessity.  Even
the order is silent that in view of utmost necessity the interim order is
granted, the Tribunal is not expected to pass such an order based on
stray observation in the judgment of the Apex Court without
recording reasons that there is an eminent or utmost necessity to
grant an interim order restraining the Sub-Registrar-I from registering
the document during pendency of the suit.
In the present case, an ex parte
interim order is passed against Government or public officer, who is
not a party to the suit by then, without recording reasons as required
under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of CPC, without issuing show cause
notice as required under Section 80(2) CPC and beyond relief claimed
in the suit.  Therefore, the order under challenge in I.A.743 of 2012 is
clearly vitiated by illegalities and therefore liable to be set aside.

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