No Judicial Officer expected to shut his mouth in Bench

No Judicial Officer is expected to sit with mouth shut in open court - No Transfer Petition Maintainable on that ground alone - Trail Judge - opined that Or.38, rule 5 C.P.C. is a proper petition rather than Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - adjourned the case several times as the respondent absent despite of allegations that the respondents are going to alienate the properties - their lordships held that expressing an opinion is not an advise to the party and further held that A Judge, who is presiding the Court, cannot be expected to be a mere silent spectator.  In fact, Judges have to play an active role. They should not and need not allow the parties or advocates to argue for hours together on the same points or on an issue when it is clear that in an application or a suit or a proceeding is not maintainable.  There is nothing wrong if a Judge openly says that a particular petition is not maintainable.  It cannot be treated as an advise to a party. Sometimes, Judges may be seeking further information, clarification or assistance from the advocates while arguing the matters. Knowing or unknowingly, sometimes, they may even go to the extent of expressing  their view about the maintainability or otherwise of a petition or a suit.  If the request of the petitioner is accepted, it amounts to giving a direction to all the Presiding Officers to shut their mouth while conducting the Court proceedings and this cannot be allowed - 2015 A.P. (2013) MSKLAWREPORTS


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

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.