Or.1, rule 10 - an Interlocutory Application seeking to bring on record, the proposed Respondent Nos.3 to 6, who are the vendors to the revision petitioners-plaintiffs and to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the property, which was subject matter of the suit.= whether there are necessary parties - with out whom -no decree be passed effectively ? a copy of the plan annexed to the plaint would itself reveal that the rastha as shown in the plaint plan consists of several plots and if the real intention of the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is only to ascertain the existence or otherwise of the rastha, it is always open for the revision petitioners-plaintiffs to summon respondents 3 to 6 through Court to compel them to appear before the Court. Further, there are number of other people through whom those facts could be ascertained. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the plan annexed to the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the presence of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 is not necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit in dispute. The purpose for which the respondent Nos.3 to 6 were sought to be brought on record, subject to the legal limitations, can be achieved through various other provisions of the Code and Indian Evidence Act. One important aspect, which needs to be considered in this kind of matters, is that the suit is of the year 2003 and the relief which is sought in the suit is simplicitor injunction suit. Further, this court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs are at liberty to take necessary steps to adduce evidence by summoning witnesses in accordance with law. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Or.1, rule 10 - an Interlocutory
Application seeking to bring on record, the proposed Respondent
Nos.3 to 6, who are the vendors to the revision petitioners-plaintiffs
and to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the property, which was
subject matter of the suit.=
whether there are necessary parties - with out whom -no decree be passed effectively ?
a copy of the plan annexed to the plaint would itself reveal that the
rastha as shown in the plaint plan consists of several plots and
if the
real intention of the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is only to ascertain
the existence or otherwise of the rastha, 
it is always open for the
revision petitioners-plaintiffs to summon respondents 3 to 6 through
Court to compel them to appear before the Court.  
Further, there are
number of other people through whom those facts could be
ascertained.
A perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the plan
annexed to the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the presence
of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 is not necessary for the purpose of
proper adjudication of the suit in dispute.  
The purpose for which the
respondent Nos.3 to 6 were sought to be brought on record, subject
to the legal limitations, can be achieved through various other
provisions of the Code and Indian Evidence Act.  
One important
aspect, which needs to be considered in this kind of matters, is that
the suit is of the year 2003 and the relief which is sought in the suit
is simplicitor injunction suit.  
Further, this court is in agreement
with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-
defendants that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs are at liberty to
take necessary steps to adduce evidence by summoning witnesses in   
accordance with law. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more