Or.39, rule 1&2 C.P.C - Interlocutory Application for interim injunction in a suit for bare injunction suit - The defence is that there is no property left by the plaintiff's husband for claiming injunction basing on alleged possession and on alleged documents - lower court made absolute the exparte interim injunction order - Appellant court reversed the order as there is cloud over the title of plaintiff and so the bare injunction with out declaration is not maintainable - Their lordships held that As the suit O.S. No.93 of 2011, pending for more than three years for trial and thereby keeping these facts in view and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, if at all to invoke for appointment of a receiver or Commissioner to protect the subject matter of the lis if need be pending trial to consider on own merits as part of the conditions the trial Court can impose by virtue of the lower appellate Courts order setting aside the interim order granted by the trial Court and the terms that to be imposed are not final but for change from time to time for imposing any terms or conditions including by taking property if necessary as a cusdia legis and entrust to a Commissioner or Receiver if not to plaintiffs or the defendants being entrusted as party Receiver to deposit the income therefrom or the receiver to manage. .- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 9

Or.39, rule 1&2 C.P.C - Interlocutory Application for interim injunction in a suit for bare injunction suit - The defence is that there is no property left by the plaintiff's husband for claiming injunction basing on alleged possession and on alleged documents - lower court made absolute the exparte interim injunction order - Appellant court reversed the order as there is cloud over the title of plaintiff and so the bare injunction with out declaration is not maintainable - 
Their Lordships held that  Importantly in M.Gurudas V. Rasaranjan  it was held, while saying all the three conditions must be made out, at para Nos.9 and 10 observed on what is meant by prima facie case that it is a finding of fact of each case for that not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out; but also that there is a serious question to be tried and the claim is not frivolous or vexatious,
and further held that whether the suit for bare injunction maintainable or remedy is to seek for declaration being the efficacious relief to clear the cloud on title.  No doubt mere contention of the defendant is not suffice to non suit the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction but for from material on record shows if not even from plaint averments, from ultimate analysis any cloud on title to non suit the claim for bare injunction vide Saraswathi V. Dr.Jaganmohana Rao 
and further held that  As the suit O.S. No.93 of 2011, pending for more than three years for trial and thereby keeping these facts in view and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, if at all to invoke for appointment of a receiver or Commissioner to protect the subject matter of the lis if need be pending trial to consider on own merits as part of the conditions the trial Court can impose by virtue of the lower appellate Courts order setting aside the interim order granted by the trial Court and the terms that to be imposed are not final but for change from time to time for imposing any terms or conditions including by taking property if necessary as a cusdia legis and entrust to a Commissioner or Receiver if not to plaintiffs or the defendants being entrusted as party Receiver to deposit the income therefrom or the receiver to manage.  Thus, besides need to pass such orders supra or not to consider, not at cost of postponing trial, but while proceeding with the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit atleast within three months from the date of receipt of
order by giving priority in disposal and by conducting day to day trial as contemplated by Order XVII C.P.C.  This direction is to subserve the ends of justice and in consonance with the
expression of this Court in Saraswathi supra besides earlier expression of Nawab Mir Barkat Alikhan supra and also other expressions including of the Apex Court subsequently and the quote from Halsburys laws of England referred supra thereto in this regard.  There shall be no order as to costs.- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 9

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS