Allowed

Shaik Jameel Ali, v. Miryalkar Gandhi

Telangana HC11 Jul 2011CRP/1955/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside an interim order modifying a temporary injunction to status quo, citing lack of reasons and absence of opportunity to parties. It restored the earlier ex parte injunction order and directed the lower court to dispose of the matter on merits within one month.

What did the court decide?

Order modifying injunction set aside; earlier ex parte injunction restored. Parties directed to contest injunction on merits within one month.

Shaik Jameel Ali, Vs Miryalkar Gandhi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1955 of 2011

Between:

Shaik Jameel Ali

..... PETITIONER

AND

Miryalkar Gandhi and another

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

2. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the Civil Revision Petition is itself taken up for disposal because only a trivial issue is involved for consideration.

¶15

3. The learned Court below in an application filed by the revision petitioner seeking adjournment modified the order of injunction granted earlier to that of status quo. The learned Court below did not record any reasons for modifying the temporary injunction order passed earlier. Further none of the parties have submitted any arguments regarding the order relating to injunction on merits. Passing such an order by modifying the earlier order without affording opportunity to both the parties and more particularly when no representation was made for modification of such order the said order is illegal and requires to be revised in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶16

4. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Court below on 28-04-2011 modifying to one of directing parties maintain status quo is set aside and the order passed earlier granting temporary injunction ex parte is restored. The parties are directed to contest the injunction petition on merits before the learned Court below. The learned Court below is directed to dispose of the injunction petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶19

July 11, 2011. PN

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1955 of 2011

¶22

July 11, 2011

Shaik Jameel Ali, v. Miryalkar Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Jameel Ali, v. Miryalkar Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Waheeduddin, Vs Smt. G. Eramma

Kummari Srinivasulu Vs Kummari Buchaiah

Rangaswamy Anantapur Vs Meenakshi and 3 Ors. Anantapur

Bajireddy Sudershan Vs The Land Acquisition Officer

Bonu Saraswathi Vs Dandi Kirshna

A.Hampaiah Vs a.Eswaraiah