Or.39, rule 1 & 2 & 2 A – interim injunction – willfully violated – overnight destroyed the quarter of plaintiff by throwing out all his household articles – pleaded that some third persons demolished – liable for punishment =2015 A.P.(2002)MSKLAWREPORTS



 It has to be observed that this Court while admitting the CRP on 22.3.2002 granted interim order suspending the orders of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in CMA No. 16 of 2002. However, it was clarified by this Court that the petitioner herein shall not act as a Pastor of the church in question as directed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District. The above interim order passed by this Court was communicated by way of Telegram by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the respondents. The facts go to show that later the quarter of the petitioner in the compound of the church in question was demolished only thereafter. According to the petitioner, the demolition took place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.00 pm. by the respondents herein with the help of 20 other members. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have behaved unruly on 23.3.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. in all probability after the receipt of the said Telegram orders and the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, L.B.Nagar and a certified copy of the telegram was filed as one of the material papers. According to the petitioner, the demolition did take place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. However, the respondents have lodged a complaint to the police on 25.3.2002 at 22.20 hours i.e., at about 10.20 p.m. in the night stating that in the morning of 25.3.2002 some unknown persons have demolished the residential quarter of the Pastor in question.

The next contention urged on behalf of the respondents/contemnors is that the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It has to be observed that the complaint was lodged at 10.20 p.m. on 25.3.2002. Even the stand of the first respondent in the counter as well as in the affidavit that he was not present on 25.3.2002 is accepted, it is not known how he could lodge a complaint on 25.3.2002 at 10.20 p.m. Thus, the contention of the first respondent that he was not present on that day is only after thought. Respondents 2 to 5 have also filed affidavits, which are stereotype in nature, stating that they were also not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It is not stated in the affidavits that on what work and to which place they have gone leaving the Church premises for those three days. The respondents merely stated that they were not present and they left for religious propagation. It is highly difficult to presume that all the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 and the absence of all the contemnors from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 shows that to escape from the liability of contempt they were intentionally absent from the Church and their intentional absence has paved the way to the strangers to demolish the Pastor's residence by entering into church compound and their absence is only to circumvent the orders of this Court passed in CMP No. 5 810 of 2002 dated 22.3.2002. =
2015 A.P.(2002)MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

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

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more