Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23869 of 2009). Case: 'K' A Judicial Officer Vs Registrar General, High Court of A.P.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23869 of 2009) |
| Judges | G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad, JJ. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Citation | AIR 2010 SC 2801, 2010 (6) SCALE 100, 2010 (6) UJ 3049 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | May 24, 2010 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
-
Leave granted.
-
The appellant who is a member of superior judicial service of the State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred this appeal for expunging the remarks made by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of order dated 25.6.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 420 of 2009 and the direction contained in paragraph 13 thereof.
-
Pochamreddy Subba Reddy and three others (hereinafter referred to as `the plaintiffs') filed O.S. No. 1 of 2009 for grant of permanent injunction to restrain Maddika Nageshwari and six others (hereinafter referred as `the defendants') from interfering with the plaint schedule properties. They also filed I.A. No. 34 of 2009 for grant of temporary injunction. The defendants contested the prayer for temporary injunction by asserting that the plaintiffs do not have any right over the suit property and that in the suits filed by them temporary injunction has already been granted by the trial Court restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession. By an order dated 12.3.2009, the appellant, who was then holding the post of Principal District Judge, Kadapa, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property. Simultaneously, he injuncted the plaintiffs from intermeddling with the suit property. While passing the order of injunction, the appellant did take cognizance of the fact that the defendants had filed O.S. Nos. 336 of 2008 and 781 of 2008 against the plaintiffs and the concerned courts had passed order of injunction in their favour and that this fact was against the plaintiffs, but still he directed the parties to maintain status quo.
-
The defendants carried the matter to the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 420 of 2009 filed by them and set aside the order passed by the appellant mainly on the ground that while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, the learned Judge totally ignored that in the suits filed by the defendants, trial Court had already passed order of injunction and restrained the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession. The Division Bench of the High Court also observed that in view of the injunction order passed in favour of the defendants, the appellant was not at all justified in directing the defendants not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. While allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants, the Division Bench of the High Court made scathing criticism of the appellant as a Judicial Officer and recorded highly disparaging remarks in paragraphs 10 and 11, which read as under:
-
This attitude of the learned District Judge is out of sheer arrogance and disrespect to the lawful orders passed by subordinate Courts. Even if he is disagreeable with the findings reached by the Subordinate Courts in granting injunction in favour of the defendants in the suits filed by them, unless those orders are set aside or modified, as the case may be, in parallel proceedings, he cannot nullify those injunction orders so granted in favour of the defendants which can be done only by the appellate Court in the appeal, if any filed. Admittedly, no such appeals were preferred against the temporary injunction orders granted in favour of the defendants. In the absence of the same, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs will not only create law and order problem but also diminish the image of the judiciary among the general public and the implementing agencies of the injunction order like police, as they will be in a turmoil situation as to which injunction order would be implemented. It must be remembered that it is the duty of every member of the legal fraternity to ensure that the image of the judiciary is not tarnished and its respectability eroded. The manner in which proceedings were taken by the learned Judge exposes a total lack of respect for judicial discipline. Judicial authoritarianism is what the proceedings in the instant case smack of. It cannot be permitted under any guise. Judges must be circumspect and self disciplined in the discharge of their judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial