NO POLICE AID PENDING ENQUIRY OF EXPARTE INJUNCTION = since I.A.No.379 of 2002 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. filed for temporary injunction has not yet been decided on merits despite counter filed by the defendants, the Court below ought not to have granted police aid for enforcement of the order of the ad interim injunction dated 9.10.2002.

REPORTED IN /judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=5839
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI    
Civil Revision Petition No.2181 of 2008

21-07-2008

Kasturi Venkata Subbaiah and 9 others.

Veerapareddy Yasodamma.  

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana

Counsel for the respondent:  Sri M. Balaji

:ORDER:

        This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2008
in I.A.No.454 of 2002 in I.A.No.379 of 2002 in O.S.No.66 of 2002 on the file of
the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet.
        The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the
respondent  herein for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of
the suit schedule properties.  Along with the suit, the plaintiff/respondent
herein filed I.A.No.379 of 2002 for grant of temporary injunction restraining
the defendants/revision petitioners  from interfering with the suit schedule
property. The Court below granted ad interim injunction on 9.10.2002.  The
defendants/revision petitioners  filed their counters contesting the said
application for temporary injunction.  While I.A.No.379 of 2002 for temporary
injunction was yet to be heard, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed another
application being I.A.No.454 of 2002 on 28.11.2002 for grant of police aid for
implementation of the order of ad interim injunction. The said application was
also opposed by the defendants/revision petitioners  by filing a counter.
However, no final orders were passed on any of the said applications and they
were merely kept pending.
While so, on 20.6.2007 I.A.No.379 of 2002 filed for temporary injunction was
dismissed for non-prosecution by the plaintiff/respondent herein.  Subsequently,
on an application made by the plaintiff/respondent herein, I.A.No.379 of 2002
was restored to file by order dated 10.4.2008.  Surprisingly on the same day
i.e., 10.4.2008 the Court below allowed I.A.No.454 of 2002 also thereby granting
police aid for implementation of the order of ad interim injunction dated
9.10.2002.
The said order made in I.A.No.454 of 2002 is under challenge in this Civil
Revision Petition.
        I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material on record.
        There can be no dispute about the inherent powers of a Court to grant
police aid for implementation of its orders so as to meet the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Such a power can be exercised even
to enforce the order of ad interim injunction. However, the question is whether
the Court below is justified in granting police aid on 10.4.2008  on an
application filed in the year 2002 for the purpose of enforcement of ad interim
injunction dated 9.10.2002.
        It is relevant to note that the defendants/revision petitioners filed
counter contesting the application for temporary injunction in the year 2002
itself. However, the application was kept pending for a long time and ultimately
it was dismissed for default on       20.06.2007. Thereafter, there was no order
in operation till the application was restored to file on 10.4.2008.
        Even while seeking restoration, the plaintiff  did not allege or establish
any attempt on the part of the defendants to violate the order of ad interim
injunction warranting grant of police aid.  In the circumstances, what prompted
the Court below  to grant police aid  on 10.04.2008 on the basis of the
allegations made in the application filed in the year 2002 is ununderstandable.
        It is also relevant to note that in I.A.No.454 of 2002 filed for police
aid, a counter was already filed by  the  defendants/petitioners herein.
However,    even without referring to the said counter the court below allowed
I.A.No.454 of 2002 by a cryptic order which runs as under :
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the counsel for the
respondents.  The I.A.No.379/2002 is restored to file and injunction  order
already granted on 9.10.2002 is continued. As there is injunction order pending
issued by this Court the bounden duty of this Court to protect its own order.
This Court has no alternative except to grant police aid to the petitioner to
protect the injunction order  already granted on 9.10.2002 in I.A.No.379/2002.
In order to protect the own order of this Court and in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation to say  that the petitioner
herein  is entitled for the relief of police aid  to protect the injunction
order already granted by this Court on 9.10.2002 in I.A.No.379 of 2002 and
thereby this petition merits to be allowed, and accordingly this petition is
allowed, in the circumstances without costs."

        As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
since
I.A.No.379 of 2002 filed under Order 39 Rules      1 & 2 of C.P.C. filed for
temporary injunction has not yet been decided on merits despite counter filed by the defendants, the Court below ought not to have granted police aid for enforcement of the order of the ad interim injunction dated 9.10.2002.
Particularly in the absence of any fresh material to show that there was any
attempt on the part of the defendants to violate the order of injunction, there
was absolutely no justification to grant police aid. Moreover, except observing
that since there is an order of injunction the Court is bound to protect its own
order by granting police aid, the Court below did not assign any reasons which
warranted granting the relief of police aid.
From the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, I am of the opinion
that the Court below committed a grave error in granting police aid firstly,
without disposing of the application for temporary injunction on  merits and
secondly without assigning any reasons for grant of such police aid. At any
rate, in the absence of any fresh material the impugned order  granting police
aid on an application made in the year 2002, on the face of it, amounts to
erroneous exercise of jurisdiction conferred under law.
        Viewed from any angle, the  order under Revision being contrary to law is
unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision
Petition is allowed with a direction to consider and decide I.A.No.454 of 2002
after disposal of I.A.No.379 of 2002 filed for temporary injunction on merits.
No costs.

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.