Crl.M.P. in M.C. filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.7.2011.- Trial court dismissed the application = Their Lordships held that The trial Court is directed to set aside the impugned ex parte order on payment of Rs.10,000/- towards costs to the respondents 1 to 3 herein and to restore the M.C., hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.1 and 3 towards maintenance.

CRLRC 325 / 2016
CRLRCSR 22959 / 2015CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
BOLLIMUNTHA MOHANA VENKATESWARA RAO  VSBOLLIMUNTHA LAKSHMI & 3 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : SUBRAHMANYAMRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL
REVISION CASE No.325 OF 2016
ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur dated 26.02.2015, whereby the learned Judge dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1729 of 2014 in M.C.No.3 of 2011 filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.7.2011. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the material on record.
In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the revision can be disposed of with the following direction: The trial Court is directed to set aside the impugned ex parte order on payment of Rs.10,000/- towards costs to the respondents 1 to 3 herein and to restore the M.C., hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.1 and 3 towards maintenance. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 08.02.2016 Tsr

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.

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.

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.