FILING DOCUMENTS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL IN DVC - MAINTAINABLE - there is no provision under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for filing of documents at a subsequent point of time. When a power is there to try a case, it is incidental power to receive a document also. For that purpose, there need not be any specific provision under the Act to receive the document. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.


CRLP 1186 / 2013

CRLPSR 3667 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
G.SRINIVASA RAO, MOGALTHUR PS.LIMITS, & 6 OTHRS.,  VSTHE STATE OF AP., REP. PP., AND ANR.,
PET.ADV. : DASARI S V V S V PRASADRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: DVC-2005 Conviction - Domestic Violence ActDISTRICT:  WEST GODAVARI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.  1186 of 2013

ORDER:


          The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the order dated 17.1.2013 in Crl.M.P. No.7102 of 2012 in D.V.C. No.3 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West Godavari District, whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the second respondent/aggrieved person to receive documents was allowed by the court below. 
2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no provision under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for filing of documents at a subsequent point of time.    When a power is there to try a case, it is incidental power to receive a document also.  For that purpose, there need not be any specific provision under the Act to receive the document.   Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
3.      The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.   However, the objections of the petitioners herein with regard to relevancy and proof of the documents can be tested during trial of the case.
_______________
K.C.BHANU, J

13.02.2013
DRK



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1186 OF 2013











13.2.2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.