2017- A.P. DIGEST - JUNE3


Order XXVI Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure  for sending expert opinion at fag end of the arguments- delay - dismissed  = suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale - Ex.A.1, in the year 2010. -  filed a written
statement wherein they have denied the execution of the agreement of
sale by disputing the signatures.- I.A. under Order XXVI Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to send Ex.A.1 and the written
statement in original to an handwriting expert for comparison of the
admitted signatures with the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1. - This
application was dismissed by the lower Court on the sole ground of
inordinate delay in filing the application and especially at the stage of
arguments.  - 
their lordships held that   I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that cause of action for his client to file the
application for sending the suit document for experts opinion arose only
on closure of the defendants evidence.  With the denial of execution of
Ex.A.1 in the written statement, cause of action had arisen for the
petitioner to come out with an application for sending the suit document
for experts opinion.  I cannot refrain from observing that it is the laid-
back approach of the parties or their counsel in filing applications
belatedly that has not only been causing prejudice to the interests of the
parties, but also leading to abnormal delays in disposal of cases.  Had the
petitioner been diligent in filing an application immediately after filing of
the written statement or at least before commencement of the trial, his
interests would have been well-served.  The Courts, facing severe pressure
of pendency of cases for long time, cannot be expected to allow
applications of this nature thwarting their efforts to dispose of cases as
quickly as possible.  On the one hand the litigants are critical of abnormal
delays in disposal of cases and on the other hand they file applications
after applications in pending suits, some of them are wholly needless, at
far too belated stages stalling the suit proceedings.  This attitude of the
parties as well as their counsel need to be changed and sooner it happens
it is better for the litigant public. I am of the opinion that the
discretion exercised by the Court below in rejecting the application of the
petitioner cannot be said to be either irrational or improper warranting
interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  The civil revision petition is
accordingly dismissed.

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