Or. 1, rule 10 C.P.C. - subsequent purchaser - in violation of injunction orders - not maintainable = No impleading petition is maintainable by a purchaser pendenti lit in contempt proceedings filed under Or.39 Rule 2 A of C.P.C = KONA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA & ANOTHER VS KONA NEELAVENI @ SUSEELA & 2 OTHERS = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=1790&year=2013

Or. 1, rule 10 C.P.C. - subsequent purchaser - in violation of injunction orders - not maintainable = No impleading petition is maintainable by a purchaser pendenti lit in contempt proceedings filed under Or.39 Rule 2 A of C.P.C =
As the injunction orders operate in personam, merely alleging that he has purchased the property subsequently, the 2nd petitioner cannot come on record in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.
          For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 
CRP 1790 / 2013
CRPSR 10244 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KONA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA & ANOTHER  VSKONA NEELAVENI @ SUSEELA & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : RAMA GOPALRESP.ADV. : RAJESWARI
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2013

Dated: 08.11.2013

Between:

Kona Venkata Radha Krishna & another.

…..Petitioners

And


Kona Neelaveni @ Suseela & others.
…..Respondents


 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1790 of 2013
ORDER :
          This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.859 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2012, passed in I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.
          The suit was originally filed by 1st petitioner herein and the 2nd petitioner was impleaded as plaintiff No.2, alleging that he has purchased plaint-A and B schedule properties.  The 1st petitioner was a party to the miscellaneous application in I.A.No.337 of 2003, in which, injunction orders are granted.  Alleging violation of such injunction orders, the 1st plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1050 of 2006 in I.A.No.337 of 2003 under Order 39, Rule 2-A of CPC.  Seeking his impleadment in the said application, the 2nd petitioner herein has filed the present application in I.A.No.674 of 2012.  The trial Court, by impugned order, dismissed the said petition.  As against the same, this revision is filed.
          It is contended by the learned counsel for 2nd petitioner that     in view of his purchase of property, he stepped into the shoe of 1stpetitioner, as such, he is entitled to come on record as 2nd petitioner in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  It is to be noticed that I.A.No.1050 of 2006 is filed alleging violation of injunction orders obtained by the               1st plaintiff in the suit.  As the injunction orders operate in personam, merely alleging that he has purchased the property subsequently, the 2nd petitioner cannot come on record in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.  Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.674 of 2012 in I.A.No.1050 of 2006.
          For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 
Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.  Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.


______________________
                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
8th November 2013
ajr

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.