APCRPCO Section 57 : Out of Order Petition

Explanation using Example

Example 1: Urgent Injunction Application

Introduction: Priya, a business owner in Hyderabad, discovers that a competitor is about to launch a product using her patented design. She needs to file an urgent injunction to prevent the launch.

Application: According to Rule 57 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules Of Practice And Circular Orders, 1990, Priya's lawyer files an "out of order" petition, marking it as urgent. A copy of this application is served to the competitor's lawyer, indicating the urgency and the specific date for the hearing.

Outcome: The court acknowledges the urgency and schedules a hearing on the specified date. If Priya's lawyer had failed to mark the application as urgent or notify the opposing party, the hearing might have been delayed, potentially allowing the competitor to proceed with the launch.

Conclusion: Compliance with Rule 57 ensures timely court intervention, protecting Priya's business interests.

Example 2: Emergency Custody Order

Introduction: Raj, a father in Visakhapatnam, learns that his ex-spouse plans to relocate their child to another state without consent. He seeks an emergency custody order.

Application: Under Rule 57, Raj's attorney files an urgent "out of order" petition, serving a copy to the ex-spouse's lawyer. The petition highlights the urgency and specifies the date for the court's consideration.

Outcome: The court prioritizes the case, scheduling a hearing on the specified date. If the urgency had not been properly communicated, Raj might have faced delays, complicating the custody situation.

Conclusion: Proper adherence to Rule 57 facilitates swift legal action, safeguarding Raj's parental rights.

Example 3: Urgent Property Dispute Resolution

Introduction: Anjali, a property owner in Vijayawada, discovers unauthorized construction on her land. She needs an immediate court order to halt the construction.

Application: Anjali's legal counsel files an "out of order" petition under Rule 57, marking it as urgent and serving a copy to the opposing party's lawyer, indicating the urgency and the hearing date.

Outcome: The court recognizes the urgency and schedules a prompt hearing. Failure to mark the application as urgent could have resulted in continued unauthorized construction.

Conclusion: Rule 57 ensures that urgent property disputes are addressed swiftly, preventing further unauthorized actions.