Or.39, rule 1 & 2 & 2 A – interim injunction – willfully violated – overnight destroyed the quarter of plaintiff by throwing out all his household articles – pleaded that some third persons demolished – liable for punishment =2015 A.P.(2002)MSKLAWREPORTS



 It has to be observed that this Court while admitting the CRP on 22.3.2002 granted interim order suspending the orders of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in CMA No. 16 of 2002. However, it was clarified by this Court that the petitioner herein shall not act as a Pastor of the church in question as directed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District. The above interim order passed by this Court was communicated by way of Telegram by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the respondents. The facts go to show that later the quarter of the petitioner in the compound of the church in question was demolished only thereafter. According to the petitioner, the demolition took place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.00 pm. by the respondents herein with the help of 20 other members. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have behaved unruly on 23.3.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. in all probability after the receipt of the said Telegram orders and the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, L.B.Nagar and a certified copy of the telegram was filed as one of the material papers. According to the petitioner, the demolition did take place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. However, the respondents have lodged a complaint to the police on 25.3.2002 at 22.20 hours i.e., at about 10.20 p.m. in the night stating that in the morning of 25.3.2002 some unknown persons have demolished the residential quarter of the Pastor in question.

The next contention urged on behalf of the respondents/contemnors is that the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It has to be observed that the complaint was lodged at 10.20 p.m. on 25.3.2002. Even the stand of the first respondent in the counter as well as in the affidavit that he was not present on 25.3.2002 is accepted, it is not known how he could lodge a complaint on 25.3.2002 at 10.20 p.m. Thus, the contention of the first respondent that he was not present on that day is only after thought. Respondents 2 to 5 have also filed affidavits, which are stereotype in nature, stating that they were also not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It is not stated in the affidavits that on what work and to which place they have gone leaving the Church premises for those three days. The respondents merely stated that they were not present and they left for religious propagation. It is highly difficult to presume that all the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 and the absence of all the contemnors from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 shows that to escape from the liability of contempt they were intentionally absent from the Church and their intentional absence has paved the way to the strangers to demolish the Pastor's residence by entering into church compound and their absence is only to circumvent the orders of this Court passed in CMP No. 5 810 of 2002 dated 22.3.2002. =
2015 A.P.(2002)MSKLAWREPORTS

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