URGENCY - Violation of injunction order and police aid - adjourning in a casual manner - their lordships of High court held that Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days from the date of filing of such application. = Boddu Penchalaiah ...Revision Petitioner Boddu Penchala Narsaiah and others ...Respondents = 2014 judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11021

URGENCY - Violation of injunction order and police aid - adjourning in a casual manner - their lordships of High court held that  Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates.  If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant.  However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously.  As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application. =
This revision is filed seeking to direct the lower Court to dispose of the
petition in IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, which is filed for grant of
police aid in implementing the ad-interim injunction granted in IA No.533 of
2013, dated 18.11.2013.=
The lower Court granted interim injunction on
18.11.2013.  According to the petitioner, the said orders were served on the
respondents.  It is alleged that on 22.11.2013 the respondents trespassed into
the suit land disobeying the orders of injunction and carried away some portion
of jawar crop.  Then he presented report to the police.  He also filed I.A.
No.550 of 2013 seeking police aid to implement the orders of the Court dated
18.11.2013.  The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court is not
disposing of the said application for some reason or the other.=

t is clear that the lower Court granted injunction order on 18.11.2013.  When
there is a complaint that the injunction order has been violated by the
respondents by trespassing into the suit land, the Courts have to visualize the
urgency in the matter.  Every effort has to be made to see that such
applications are dealt with expeditiously and willful disobedience should not be
tolerated.  Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates.  If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant.  However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously.  As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application.
2014 judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11021

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR            

CRP No.696 of 2014

11-03-2014

Boddu Penchalaiah ...Revision Petitioner

Boddu Penchala Narsaiah and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri T.C. Krishnan

Counsel for the Respondents:    ----

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases Referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR        

Civil Revision Petition No. 696 of 2014

Order:
This revision is filed seeking to direct the lower Court to dispose of the
petition in IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, which is filed for grant of
police aid in implementing the ad-interim injunction granted in IA No.533 of
2013, dated 18.11.2013.
The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff.  He filed the suit for
permanent injunction against the respondents.  He also filed I.A. No.533 of 2013
for grant of interim injunction.  The lower Court granted interim injunction on
18.11.2013.  According to the petitioner, the said orders were served on the
respondents.  It is alleged that on 22.11.2013 the respondents trespassed into
the suit land disobeying the orders of injunction and carried away some portion
of jawar crop.  Then he presented report to the police.  He also filed I.A.
No.550 of 2013 seeking police aid to implement the orders of the Court dated
18.11.2013.  The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court is not
disposing of the said application for some reason or the other.
As seen from the docket orders passed by the lower Court in IA No.550 of 2013,
the said IA was filed on 22.11.2013.  Urgent notice was ordered and case was
posted to 09.12.2013.  On 09.12.2013 as the Presiding Officer was on leave the
matter was adjourned to 21.01.2014.  On 21.01.2014 the case was posted to
11.02.2014 for counter.  From 11.02.2014 the case was again posted to 17.02.2014
in spite of representing that there is urgency in the matter.   From 17.02.2014
the matter was adjourned to 19.02.2014 and from 19.02.2014 it was adjourned to
25.02.2014.  On 25.02.2014 the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore again
the matter was adjourned.
It is clear that the lower Court granted injunction order on 18.11.2013.  When
there is a complaint that the injunction order has been violated by the
respondents by trespassing into the suit land, the Courts have to visualize the
urgency in the matter.  Every effort has to be made to see that such
applications are dealt with expeditiously and willful disobedience should not be
tolerated.  Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates.  If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant.  However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously.  As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application.
Accordingly, the CRP is disposed of directing the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Gudur, to dispose of IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013
in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.  However, in the circumstances, no costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall
stand closed.
______________________  
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.    
Date: 11.03.2014

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.