Rule 42 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924- The power of the Court below to pass interlocutory orders is traceable to Rule 42 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, and the said power extends to not only making an interlocutory order, but also discharging the same at any time.; police aid by agency court = to provide police protection for implementation of an injunction order without an application being filed for such relief. Further, necessary grounds have to be made out for directing police aid to ensure compliance with an injunction order. Without such grounds being pleaded and proved, the Court below should normally not order police aid for implementing an injunction order.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.136 of 2013

 

DATED:  01.03.2013

 

Between:

 

Parsika Chinna Satyam @ Satyam and others

 

   ...  Petitioners

 

And

 

 

Mukthi Gopala Krishna Murthy

                                                             …   Respondent







                                      





The Court made the following:

                         HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.136 of 2013


ORDER:       

          The defendants in O.S.NO.169 of 2011 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent & Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, are the petitioners.  They are aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.146 of 2011 in O.S.No.169 of 2011 granting an interim injunction against them restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

2. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that it was an ex parte order passed by the Court below upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff alone.  The power of the Court below to pass interlocutory orders is traceable to Rule 42 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, and the said power extends to not only making an interlocutory order, but also discharging the same at any time. 
 It would therefore be appropriate that the defendants in the suit first move the Court below for discharge of the ex parte order instead of approaching this Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition under Article  227 of the Constitution.

3.  Before parting with the matter, this Court is constrained to observe that it would not be appropriate for the Court below to provide police protection for implementation of an injunction order without an application being filed for such relief.  Further, necessary grounds have to be made out for directing police aid to ensure compliance with an injunction order. Without such grounds being pleaded and proved, the Court below should normally not order police aid for implementing an injunction order.  The Court below would therefore be well advised to keep these aspects in mind.

          4.  The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the Special Assistant Agent & Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, for discharge of the
ex parte injunction granted in I.A.No.146 of 2011 in O.S.No.169 of 2011.  CRP
 MP No.177 of 2013 shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No costs.

_________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

Date: 1st March, 2013
Pab/Bsb


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

                   

 

                                   

 

 

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION  No.136 of 2013






                                                                                      

                                           1st  March, 2013


                             

Pab/Bsb

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.