DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)



A close perusal of Section 28 would show that though as per this
Section the proceedings under Sec.12, 18 to 23 and offences under Sec. 31 are
governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that is not an inscrutable
rule inasmuch as Sec.28(1) is having a saving clause and also subject to sub-
section(2).  
When we analyse the limitations of Section 28(1) with reference
to the civil nature of the remedies provided under Sec.18 to 22 and saving
provisions under Sec.13 and 23, we can understand that for conducting
enquiry, the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for
each adjournment like in criminal cases.  
It is because, Sec.13 lays down that
the Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12 to
the Protection Officer for serving on the respondent. So for securing the
appearance of respondent, at the first instance, the Magistrate need not, nay
shall not issue warrant. 
Even if the respondents failed to turn up after
receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any, the Magistrate need
not take coercive steps for securing their presence and on the other hand he can
treat them as Non-contesting respondents and pass an exparte order by
virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act. 
So during
the enquiry under Sec.12 and till an order is passed under Sec.18 to 23, the
Magistrate need not insist the presence of parties for each adjournment and
take coercive steps due to their absence. 
It is only under exceptional
circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for
securing the presence of the concerned party.  
Such a judicial flexibility to
lay down own procedure is conferred on the Magistrate under Sec.28(2) of the
D.V. Act.  
By following this procedure, learned Magistrate can obviate the
presence of the respondents, some of whom in most of the cases are 
unnecessarily roped in, throughout the enquiry.


i)      Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in
view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the
parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of
the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite
receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the
material available.  It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate
feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the
parties even by adopting coercive measures. 
ii)     In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a
trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea
that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable.
It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic
relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the
petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already
acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the
Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the  
proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly
amounts to abuse of process of Court. - 2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS ( Telegana)

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.