LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label order 39. Show all posts
Showing posts with label order 39. Show all posts
Friday, March 15, 2013

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 39, Rule 2A-Scope of-Disobedience or breach of injunc-tion-Trial court ordered the person guilty to be detained in civil prison-High Court setting aside the order accepting the contention that court cannot detain such person without ordering his property to be attached- Interpretation of Statutes : Word `and'-Held sometimes by force of context is read as `or' : Principle of Noscitur a Sociis, applied. Maxwell on `Interpretation of Statutes', referred to. Words and Phrases : Expression `and may also' occuring in Order 39, Rule 2A, C.P.C.-Meaning of. Held, it is open to the court to attach the property of disobeying party and at the same time court can order him to be detained in civil prison also if the court deems it necessary-Both the steps can be resorted to or one of them alone need be chosen-However, High Court was right that in view of the respondent sub-sequently removing the obstruction and tendering unconditional apology, it is not necessary to put him in prison. Vidya Charan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR (1964) SC 1099, relied on. Ottapiurakkal Thazath Suppi & Ors. V. Alabi Mashur Koyanna Koya Kunhi Koya, AIR (1917) Mad. 448; Nawal Kishore Singh & Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad Singh & Ors., AIR (1976) Pat. 56 and Kapildeo Upadhyay v. Raghunath Pandey, AIR (1978) Pat. 212, referred to. Vidya Charan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR (1964) SC 1099, relied on. Black's Law Dictionary and Strand's Judicial Dictionary, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11992 of 1998.

›
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 PETITIONER: SAMEE KHAN  Vs. RESPONDENT: BINDU KHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/19...
Saturday, October 13, 2012

For seeking temporary injunction, the petitioner has to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property on the date of filing of the suit and that she has to comply the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience in her favour and irreparable loss being caused to her if temporary injunction is not granted. The petitioner in order to prove her possession over the petition schedule property has filed documents - Exs.A.3, A.4 and A.5. But, Exs.A.3 to A.5 are issued based on Exs.A.1 and A.7, and these documents do not in any way establish the possession of the petitioner over the petition schedule property. Except, Exs.A.3 to A.5, the petitioner has not filed any authentic material to show that she is in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has prima facie proved her possession over the petition schedule property. So far as the admission of respondent No.1 in his deposition and the report of the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.234 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur are concerned, the petitioner has to bring the same on record during the course of the trial in the suit and it cannot be dealt with at this interlocutory stage.

›
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA       C.M. A. No.437 of 2005 04.10.2012     Urumula Yellamma w/o.late Venkatappa Reddy   1)...