Posts

Showing posts from October, 2014

Or.1, rule 10 and consequential amendment - injunction granted not to alienate - pending suit properties are alienated - petition to implead them as defendants - notice was order to the proposed respondents , they remain exparte - despite of it the trial court dismissed the application - their Lordships held that The manner, in which the lower Court has passed the impugned order, reflected that it is in a highly confused state of mind. Thus, the reasoning of the lower Court that addition of party after commencement of trial is barred reflects a complete non application of mind on its part as there is no such law and regarding boundaries the plaint schedule vis-a-vis the schedule contained in the sale deed would show that while the former has described the boundaries in terms of plot numbers, the latter has described the boundaries in terms of survey numbers.The fact, however, remains that the survey number remains common both in the plaint schedule and also in the schedule shown in the sale deed.the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the suit.=Civil Revision Petition No.4410 of 2013 04-09-2014 K.Yogender Reddy and another.. Petitioners Smt.K.Usha Rani and 2 others. .. Respondents = 2014 - Oct. Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=11971

Or.1, rule 10 and consequential amendment - injunction granted not to alienate - pending suit properties are alienated - petition to implead them as defendants - notice was order to the proposed respondents , they remain exparte - despite of it the trial court dismissed the application - their Lordships held that The manner, in which the lower Court has passed the impugned order, reflected that it is in a highly confused state of mind. Thus, the reasoning of the lower Court that addition of party after commencement of trial is barred reflects a complete non application of mind on its part as there is no  such law and regarding boundaries the plaint schedule vis-a-vis the schedule contained in the sale deed would show that while the former has described the boundaries in terms of plot numbers, the latter has described the boundaries in terms of survey
numbers.The fact, however, remains that the survey number remains common   both in the plaint schedule and also in the schedule shown in …

Or.7, Rule 11 C.P.C. - for rejection of O.P. for Divorce and for Declaration that the decree given by Arizona is not binding on her and for return of gold , cash and for permanent alimony - husband filed application for rejection of main OP - Trial court dismissed - their lordships held that In the instant case, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that any ground pleaded by him fits into Rule 11 of Order VII, CPC. Even if the facts pleaded by him are taken as true, he is entitled to rely upon the decree passed by the Court at Arizona as a defence. In other words, he can raise the plea of res judicata as one of the defences. It is fairly well established that the plea of res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law. It is only when the relevant facts, namely, that as between the same parties, a Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the issue which falls for consideration in the subsequent set of proceedings, that the Court can refuse to adjudicate the same issue once again. On such facts being proved, it operates as a bar in law. Even when there is no dispute regarding a judgment or decree in a different set of proceedings as operating res judicata, it cannot be a basis for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. = CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5336 OF 2013 02-09-2014 Hareesh Kakarla... PETITIONER E. Sweetha .. RESPONDENTS = 2014 - Oct. Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=11940

 Or.7, Rule 11 C.P.C. - for rejection of O.P. for Divorce and for Declaration that the decree given by Arizona is not binding on her and for return of gold , cash and for permanent alimony - husband filed application for rejection of main OP - Trial court dismissed - their lordships held that In the instant case, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that any ground pleaded by him fits into Rule 11 of Order VII, CPC.  Even if the facts pleaded by him are taken as true, he is
entitled to rely upon the decree passed by the Court at Arizona as a defence.  
In other words, he can raise the plea of res judicata as one of the defences.  It is fairly well established that the plea of res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law.  It is only when the relevant facts, namely, that as between the same parties, a Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the issue which falls for consideration in the subsequent set of proceedings, that the Court can refuse to adjudicate the same issue onc…

Order 39 Rule 1 CPC - suit for permanent injunction along with interim injunction filed on 23-6-2014 - I. A. was heard on 22-8-2014 urgent notice was order and adjourn the case for 23-9-2014 - their Lordships held that When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that the plaintiff is not dispossessed in the meanwhile. The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. When there is urgency in the matter the attitude of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, in fact defeat the purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.= C.R.P. No. 2950 of 2014 03-09-2014 Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi.. Petitioner G. Nageshwara Reddy and others .. Respondents = 2014 Oct. Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=11898

Order 39 Rule 1 CPC - suit for permanent injunction along with interim injunction filed on 23-6-2014 - I. A. was heard on 22-8-2014 urgent notice was order and adjourn the case for 23-9-2014 - their Lordships held that When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that the plaintiff is not dispossessed in the meanwhile.  The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date.   When there is urgency in the matter the attitude of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, in fact defeat the purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.=

Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is as follows.
       1.Cases in which temporary injunction may be
granted.-Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-
       (a) that any property in dispute in a…