Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1933 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1933 (5) TMI 18 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Whether interlocutory orders filed on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit dismissed for default are restored when the suit is restored.
2. Whether the District Judge's decision in favor of the defendants regarding the office of Adyapakam is justified.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a suit for a declaration and applied for a temporary injunction, which was granted by the District Munsif but later reversed by the District Judge. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the District Judge's order. The suit was dismissed for default but later restored. The issue was whether interlocutory orders filed along with the suit are also restored upon the restoration of the suit. Citing a Full Bench judgment, it was held that restoration of the suit does not automatically restore interlocutory orders unless expressly mentioned or implied in the restoration order. The intention of the officer restoring the suit determines the restoration of interlocutory matters. In this case, the injunction petition and related orders were considered pendants to the suit and were restored. The preliminary objection was disallowed, following the principles laid down in previous judgments.

2. The District Judge's decision in favor of the defendants regarding the office of Adyapakam was upheld in the revision petition. The High Court observed that while the plaintiff presented some documents questioning the defendants' rights, the High Court in a previous litigation had held in favor of the defendants. The District Judge's decision was deemed correct as there was a prima facie view in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to override it. The historical record also indicated the defendants' long-standing right to the office. The High Court concluded that a total injunction against the defendants was not justified, and there was no jurisdictional issue or irregularity warranting interference in the Civil Revision Petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates