URGENCY - Violation of injunction order and police aid - adjourning in a casual manner - their lordships of High court held that Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days from the date of filing of such application. = Boddu Penchalaiah ...Revision Petitioner Boddu Penchala Narsaiah and others ...Respondents = 2014 judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11021
URGENCY - Violation of injunction order and police aid - adjourning in a casual manner - their lordships of High court held that Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application. =
This revision is filed seeking to direct the lower Court to dispose of the
petition in IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, which is filed for grant of
police aid in implementing the ad-interim injunction granted in IA No.533 of
2013, dated 18.11.2013.=
The lower Court granted interim injunction on
18.11.2013. According to the petitioner, the said orders were served on the
respondents. It is alleged that on 22.11.2013 the respondents trespassed into
the suit land disobeying the orders of injunction and carried away some portion
of jawar crop. Then he presented report to the police. He also filed I.A.
No.550 of 2013 seeking police aid to implement the orders of the Court dated
18.11.2013. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court is not
disposing of the said application for some reason or the other.=
t is clear that the lower Court granted injunction order on 18.11.2013. When
there is a complaint that the injunction order has been violated by the
respondents by trespassing into the suit land, the Courts have to visualize the
urgency in the matter. Every effort has to be made to see that such
applications are dealt with expeditiously and willful disobedience should not be
tolerated. Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application.
2014 judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11021
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
CRP No.696 of 2014
11-03-2014
Boddu Penchalaiah ...Revision Petitioner
Boddu Penchala Narsaiah and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri T.C. Krishnan
Counsel for the Respondents: ----
<Gist :
>Head Note:
?Cases Referred:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Civil Revision Petition No. 696 of 2014
Order:
This revision is filed seeking to direct the lower Court to dispose of the
petition in IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, which is filed for grant of
police aid in implementing the ad-interim injunction granted in IA No.533 of
2013, dated 18.11.2013.
The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for
permanent injunction against the respondents. He also filed I.A. No.533 of 2013
for grant of interim injunction. The lower Court granted interim injunction on
18.11.2013. According to the petitioner, the said orders were served on the
respondents. It is alleged that on 22.11.2013 the respondents trespassed into
the suit land disobeying the orders of injunction and carried away some portion
of jawar crop. Then he presented report to the police. He also filed I.A.
No.550 of 2013 seeking police aid to implement the orders of the Court dated
18.11.2013. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court is not
disposing of the said application for some reason or the other.
As seen from the docket orders passed by the lower Court in IA No.550 of 2013,
the said IA was filed on 22.11.2013. Urgent notice was ordered and case was
posted to 09.12.2013. On 09.12.2013 as the Presiding Officer was on leave the
matter was adjourned to 21.01.2014. On 21.01.2014 the case was posted to
11.02.2014 for counter. From 11.02.2014 the case was again posted to 17.02.2014
in spite of representing that there is urgency in the matter. From 17.02.2014
the matter was adjourned to 19.02.2014 and from 19.02.2014 it was adjourned to
25.02.2014. On 25.02.2014 the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore again
the matter was adjourned.
It is clear that the lower Court granted injunction order on 18.11.2013. When
there is a complaint that the injunction order has been violated by the
respondents by trespassing into the suit land, the Courts have to visualize the
urgency in the matter. Every effort has to be made to see that such
applications are dealt with expeditiously and willful disobedience should not be
tolerated. Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application.
Accordingly, the CRP is disposed of directing the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Gudur, to dispose of IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013
in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall
stand closed.
______________________
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Date: 11.03.2014
should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application. =
This revision is filed seeking to direct the lower Court to dispose of the
petition in IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, which is filed for grant of
police aid in implementing the ad-interim injunction granted in IA No.533 of
2013, dated 18.11.2013.=
The lower Court granted interim injunction on
18.11.2013. According to the petitioner, the said orders were served on the
respondents. It is alleged that on 22.11.2013 the respondents trespassed into
the suit land disobeying the orders of injunction and carried away some portion
of jawar crop. Then he presented report to the police. He also filed I.A.
No.550 of 2013 seeking police aid to implement the orders of the Court dated
18.11.2013. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court is not
disposing of the said application for some reason or the other.=
t is clear that the lower Court granted injunction order on 18.11.2013. When
there is a complaint that the injunction order has been violated by the
respondents by trespassing into the suit land, the Courts have to visualize the
urgency in the matter. Every effort has to be made to see that such
applications are dealt with expeditiously and willful disobedience should not be
tolerated. Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application.
2014 judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11021
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
CRP No.696 of 2014
11-03-2014
Boddu Penchalaiah ...Revision Petitioner
Boddu Penchala Narsaiah and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri T.C. Krishnan
Counsel for the Respondents: ----
<Gist :
>Head Note:
?Cases Referred:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Civil Revision Petition No. 696 of 2014
Order:
This revision is filed seeking to direct the lower Court to dispose of the
petition in IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, which is filed for grant of
police aid in implementing the ad-interim injunction granted in IA No.533 of
2013, dated 18.11.2013.
The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for
permanent injunction against the respondents. He also filed I.A. No.533 of 2013
for grant of interim injunction. The lower Court granted interim injunction on
18.11.2013. According to the petitioner, the said orders were served on the
respondents. It is alleged that on 22.11.2013 the respondents trespassed into
the suit land disobeying the orders of injunction and carried away some portion
of jawar crop. Then he presented report to the police. He also filed I.A.
No.550 of 2013 seeking police aid to implement the orders of the Court dated
18.11.2013. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court is not
disposing of the said application for some reason or the other.
As seen from the docket orders passed by the lower Court in IA No.550 of 2013,
the said IA was filed on 22.11.2013. Urgent notice was ordered and case was
posted to 09.12.2013. On 09.12.2013 as the Presiding Officer was on leave the
matter was adjourned to 21.01.2014. On 21.01.2014 the case was posted to
11.02.2014 for counter. From 11.02.2014 the case was again posted to 17.02.2014
in spite of representing that there is urgency in the matter. From 17.02.2014
the matter was adjourned to 19.02.2014 and from 19.02.2014 it was adjourned to
25.02.2014. On 25.02.2014 the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore again
the matter was adjourned.
It is clear that the lower Court granted injunction order on 18.11.2013. When
there is a complaint that the injunction order has been violated by the
respondents by trespassing into the suit land, the Courts have to visualize the
urgency in the matter. Every effort has to be made to see that such
applications are dealt with expeditiously and willful disobedience should not be
tolerated. Such kind of applications should not be dealt with casually and
should not be adjourned to longer dates. If the injunction orders are violated
without any due regard to the orders of the Court, there will be no respect to
the Court orders, therefore necessary police aid should be given as and when the
circumstances warrant. However, if any application for vacate injunction is
pending then both such applications i.e., vacate petition, application alleging
violation of injunction order and police aid petition should be disposed of
simultaneously. As and when such grievances are expressed by the parties, the
Courts have to dispose of the same urgently, preferably at least within 30 days
from the date of filing of such application.
Accordingly, the CRP is disposed of directing the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Gudur, to dispose of IA No.550 of 2013 in IA No.533 of 2013 in OS No.220 of 2013
in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall
stand closed.
______________________
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Date: 11.03.2014
Comments
Post a Comment