Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Papanna vs Nagachari And Others on 20 February, 1996

Rudrrappa S/O Layappa @ Harijan vs Riyaz Ahmed S/O Ibrahimsab Mamadapur & ... on 1 June, 2016

9. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the Trial Court is prevented from issuing any direction to the police for implementing the temporary injunction order. Such contention is belied by judgments of this Court in the case of Papanna (Supra) and in the case of Smt. Karisiddamma and Others (Supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Hanmantha S/O Late Nagappa Nayak vs Yankappa S/O Late Nagappa Nayak & Ors on 28 January, 2016

2. It is no doubt true that this Court in Papanna vs. Nagachari1 observed that Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC for 1 ILR 1996 KAR 1271 4 W.P.No.203884/2015 taking action for disobedience of an order of temporary injunction, does not prevent the Court from taking steps to see that its orders are implemented and if the Court had no power to implement its own orders, then there is no purpose in the Courts passing orders in matters coming before it and further the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2(a) is not exhaustive and therefore Court can pass appropriate orders to see that its orders are enforced. It was further observed that "in necessary cases" even the police can be directed to enforce the orders of the Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R M Reddy - Full Document
1