G RAJA KUMARI Vs. B KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case highlights the travails of the defendants/respondents when the Courts grant ex parte ad interim injunctions at the asking of the plaintiffs/ petitioners and then take their own time and do not dispose of the interlocutory applications for injunctions after counter-affidavits are filed by the affected parties and in spite of the valiant efforts of the affected parties for early disposal: this, in the teeth of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for short) especially Rules 3-A and 4 of Order 39, and several decisions of the Apex Court and this Court - in the present case, in spite of the direction and exhortation of this Court, leading to the present Contempt Case. The petitioners move this Court under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent, who was the Principal Subordinate Judge at Tirupati at the relevant time. First the leading facts.

(2.) On 14-6-1995, oneP. Kishore Kumar (the plaintiff) laid O.S. No. 107 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge's Court at Tirupati against the petitioners herein and another for specific performance of an agreement of sale; he also filed LA. No. 587 of 1995 for grant of ex parte temporary injunction against the petitioners restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which is a school building at Tirupati. The respondent by his order dated 14-6-1995 (i.e. the same day) granted ex parte ad interim injunction and directed notice returnable by 11-7-1995 and posted the LA. to 15-6-1995 for proof of compliance with the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed C.M.A. No. 766 of 1995 before this Court. This Court found fault with the petitioners for rushing to this Court without moving the learned Subordinate Judge's Court for vacating the order of interim injunction. In that view, this Court on 26-6-1995 disposed of the C.M.A. at the admission stage by the following order:

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioners sought vacation of the ex parte order of interim injunction by filing counter-affidavit in LA. No. 587 of 1995 on 11-7-1995 enclosing a copy of the order of this Court in C.M.A. No. 766 of 1995 dated 26-6-1995 along with a Memo. The petitioners allege that the respondent had been adjourning the I. A. from time to time without disposing it of even though the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners herein were heard and completed on 18-7-1995 itself. They also allege that the said action of the respondent is a deliberate violation of the mandatory direction of this Court in its order dated 26-6-1995. They further allege that, taking advantage of the ad interim injunction, the plaintiff was causing irreparable damage to the suit property and that he had not only sold away some of the school furniture but also leased out the school building to a tutorial College, collecting a fat sum of Rs. 1 lakh. They also allege that in view of the fact that the Counsel for the plaintiff happened to be the President of Tirupati Bar Association, the case was being adjourned for bno reason except on the ground of either advocates' boycott or some other inconsequential ground. On that basis the petitioners contend that the respondent is guilty of deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders of the High Court dated 26-6-1995 in C.M.A. No. 766 of 1995 and there fore liable to be punished under the provisions of the Act.