Or. 21, rule 32 c.p.c. = Bare injunction suit decree - can be executed for violation of injunction order under Or .21, rule 32 but not for removing any hurdles paid in the rastha passage by the JDr - no court can depute amina or any body to remove the hurdles = MALLEMPATI SITALAKSHMI VS NALLAPTI RAJA JAYALAKSHMI & ANOTHER = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=2772&year=2013

Or. 21, rule 32 c.p.c. = Bare injunction suit decree - can be executed for violation of  injunction order under Or .21, rule 32 but not for removing any hurdles paid in the rastha passage by the JDr - no court can depute amina or any body to remove the hurdles =
It is no doubt true that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the decree passed therein became final.  The relief is in the form of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from causing any obstruction for the passage, mentioned in the plaint plan.  Assuming that the respondents have created any hurdle in the passage, the only course open to the petitioner is to pray for execution as provided for under Rule 32 of Order XXI C.P.C.  That provision in so far as it pertains to the decrees of perpetual injunction, enables the Executing Court to confine the judgment debtors in civil prison.  Beyond that, the Court is not conferred with jurisdiction to take any further steps. 

The relief claimed by the petitioner in the E.P. is to depute the Amin of the Court or any other person for removal of the hurdles.  Such a relief is totally outside the scope of execution of the decree in a suit for injunction simplicitor.  The Executing Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by it.
CRP 2772 / 2013
CRPSR 20652 / 2012
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MALLEMPATI SITALAKSHMI  VSNALLAPTI RAJA JAYALAKSHMI & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : SRIHARIRESP.ADV. : SUBRAHMANYAM
SUBJECT: C.P.C.DISTRICT:  GUNTUR
  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

Civil Revision Petition No.2772 of 2013
ORDER:

The petitioner filed O.S.No.263 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property.  The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 18.09.2008.  The appeal filed against the decree is said to have dismissed.  After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.358 of 2008 under Order XXI C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint the Court Amin or to depute any other person for removal of hurdles, which were installed by the respondents in the plaint schedule property.  The so-called hurdles were also given markings.  The respondents opposed the E.P. by filing a counter.  They pleaded that the E.P. in the present form is not maintainable in law.  The Executing Court dismissed the E.P., through order, dated 22.02.2012.  Hence, this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

It is no doubt true that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the decree passed therein became final.  The relief is in the form of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from causing any obstruction for the passage, mentioned in the plaint plan.  Assuming that the respondents have created any hurdle in the passage, the only course open to the petitioner is to pray for execution as provided for under Rule 32 of Order XXI C.P.C.  That provision in so far as it pertains to the decrees of perpetual injunction, enables the Executing Court to confine the judgment debtors in civil prison.  Beyond that, the Court is not conferred with jurisdiction to take any further steps. 

The relief claimed by the petitioner in the E.P. is to depute the Amin of the Court or any other person for removal of the hurdles.  Such a relief is totally outside the scope of execution of the decree in a suit for injunction simplicitor.  The Executing Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by it.

The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed.  It is, however, left open to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law.  There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall also stand disposed of.


____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.   
Dated:11.10.2013

GJ











THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil Revision Petition No.2772 of 2013



Date:11.10.2013

GJ                                                                     




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.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.