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

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

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
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

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

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more