Admittedly, numbersuch appeals were preferred against the temporary injunction orders granted in favour of the defendants.
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.
Simultaneously, he injuncted the plaintiffs from intermeddling with the suit property.
While passing the order of injunction, the appellant did take companynizance of the fact that the defendants had filed S. Nos.
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 number at all justified in directing the defendants number to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs.
They also filed I.A. No.34 of 2009 for grant of temporary injunction.
Appeal No.420 of 2009 and the direction companytained in paragraph 13 thereof.
The defendants carried the matter to the High Court.
336 of 2008 and 781 of 2008 against the plaintiffs and the companycerned companyrts 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.
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.
Leave granted.
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.
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.
The defendants companytested the prayer for temporary injunction by asserting that the plaintiffs do number 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.
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.
