Allahabad Court September 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhagwati Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Roop Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All622
ORDERMithan Lal, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that on 6th May, 1957, the appeal was fixed for final hearing for 17th July, 1957, but according to the finding of the Court below neither the parties to the appeal nor their counsel had knowledge of this date. On this date the appeal was dismissed for default and then an application for restoration was made on 3rd September, 1957. The appeal has been restored and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the application for restoration having been filed more than 30 days after the date of the dismissal of the appeal the application was barred by Article 168 of the Limitation Act.2. This contention cannot be accepted because unless the dismissal of the appeal is under Order 41 Rule 17 neither Rule 19 will apply nor Article 168. In such a case the error can be corrected by the Court in its inherent jurisdiction and for the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 Article...
Deep Chand Vs. Faiz Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ345
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the sum of Rs. 635 held in deposit in the Criminal Court as price of the crop standing in the. plots mentioned at the foot of the plaint in Rabi 1356E belonged to the plaintiffs and they were the owner of the said crop, and also for recovery of the said sum. The defence was a denial of the title of the plaintiffs and the claim to the crop by the defendant. The defendant alleged that he had grown the crop himself and he was entitled to its price. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but that decree was reversed in appeal by the learned; Judge-Small Cause Court exercising the powers of a Civil Judge, who heard the said appeal. The learned Judge considered only one point in appeal and that was whether the plaintiffs or the defendant were in possession over the plots in suit in Rabi 1356F.2. It may be stated that there were proceedings, under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in which it was held that the defen...
Town Area Committee Vs. Budh Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All438
Desai, C.J.1. This is a revision under the Small Cause Courts Act by the Town Area Committee of Raya whose suit for the recovery of a sum ofmoney from the opposite party has been dismissed by the Court of Small Causes.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 293(1) of the Municipalities Act, which is in force in the Town Area, Raya, the Town Area Committee granted the theka of a shop to the opposite party for one year on payment of Rs. 2000/-, to be paid in monthly instalments or Rs. 200 and Rs. 100. The respondent paid some instalments and defaulted in payment of the rest. Consequently on 14-4-55 the suit giving rise to this revision was instituted by the applicant against the opposite party for recovery of the balance of the money due. The suit has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes on the ground that it was one for recovery of rent governed by Article 110 of the Limitation Act or for damages for breach of contract governed by Article 115 the li...
Kanihya Lal Vs. Gunwant Rai Aggarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All514
Mithan Lal, J.1. The only point which requires consideration in this case is. whether after the abolition of the Court of Small Causes, which passed the decree in question, an application for restoration under Order IX Rule 13 could be entertained by the Munsif without any security. Both the Courts below have found that the provisions of Section 17 of the provincial Small Cause CourtsAct being mandatory the decree could not be set aside due to not depositing the money or furnishing security.2. It appears that the suit was decreed ex parte by the Judge Small Cause Court, Muzaffarnagar, on 2nd June, 1959. It seems the Munsif having the power of Small Cause Court was transferred in July, 1959, and was succeeded by an officer who had no such powers. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree under, Order 9 Rule 13 was made on 12th September, 1959, but neither any money was deposited nor any application for leave to furnish security was given nor any security was given at any stag...
Dewari Lal Vs. Sunder Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All549
ORDERMithan Lal, J. 1. In this revision the only point which requires consideration is whether the case should be deemed to have been decided on merits as held by the trial Court or it should be deemed to have bean decided ex parte. 2. It appears that the case was fixed for final hearing for the first time on April 1, 1959. On that date the defendants made an application for adjournment. The Court did not pass any order on that application and directed, that the application shall be put up after the plaintiff's evidence was recorded. After making the application for adjournment the counsel for the defendants withdrew from the case. The plaintiff's evidence was recorded and the only witness who was produced was not cross-examined. The application for adjournment was taken up and since the counsel for the defendants was not present the application was rejected and the learned Additional Munsif decreed the suit on merits.Thereafter an application under Order IX, Rule 13 was Bled and the l...
Sheo Bachan Pandit Vs. Ram Dhari Gir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All623
ORDERMithan Lal, J. 1. The only point involved in this case is whether the Judicial Officer to whom an issue had been remitted could set aside its own finding after the file had been returned to the Civil Court.2. Learned counsel for the parties could not show anything either in favour or against it. But one thing which may be noted is that in all such cases where an issue is remitted either by the Civil. Court to the revenue court or by the revenue court to the Civil Court, because of the provisions of law, for a finding, it has to be taken that the suit having been instituted in the court of correct jurisdiction the Court to which the issue is referred only acts as a Court of concurrent jurisdiction. This is more so because the finding on the issue given by such a Court has to be accepted by the court in which the suit was filed and the suit haw to be decided in view of that finding. In either case where the suit is instituted in the Civil Court and the issue is referred to the reven...
Raghubir Saran and ors. Vs. Param Kirti Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All444
Desai, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for permanent injunction and possession over a plot of land has been dismissed by the appellate court. The second appeal has been referred to a larger Bench by Upadhya, J. because an important question of law is involved in it. The respondent is admittedly the owner of the land and it is admitted that one Bankey Lal, or his predecessor, built on it a tiled thatch. Who exactly constructed it, on what conditions and terms, and When is not known. In execution of a decree obtained against Ban-key Lal's widow Smt. Shanti, the thatch together with the right of residence was put to auction in 1929 and purchased by the appellants. The sale certificate granted to them on 23-3-1929 expressly mentions that the site, i.e., the land on which the thatch stood, was not sold, and that right of residence was sold, to them. Though the appellants claimed that the thatch existed till one or two years before the institution of the suit giving ris...
Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All439
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh, who is a member of the Hind Provincial Flying Club, has come up to his Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 1 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., Lucknow, on the 3rd of October, 1960.2. The Hind Provincial Flying Club (hereinafter referred to as the Club) is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. According to the allegations made by the petitioner the respondent No. 2 Sri B. P. Singh, who is the secretary of the club, issued a notice calling the tenth annual general meeting of the Club at the Club Office for the 15th of May, 1960, at 4 p. m. It is further alleged that notices under the signature of the respondent No. 2 were served on the members of the Club-On the morning of 15th of May, 1960, a notice was published in the ...
Shyam Lal Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC1019(All)
Brijlal Gupta, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a dealer in food-grains. On 29th January, 1957, he got himself registered under Section 8-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. On 31st January, 1957, he made an application for the grant of an exemption certificate for relieving him from liability for payment of sales tax on his turnover of food-grains. It was accompanied by an exemption fee of Rs. 18 only. Upon inquiry, the Sales Tax Officer made an estimate of his turnover at Rs. 25,000, and held that he was liable for payment of an exemption fee of Rs. 150 by order dated 18th September, 1957. As the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 18, the Sales Tax Officer required him to deposit the balance of Rs. 132 within sixteen days of the receipt of the order.3. The petitioner was not satisfied with the estimate of his turnover and the amount of exemption fee thereon, and filed a revision application before the Judge (Revisions). He a...
Rameshwar Pd. Vs. Rajasthan Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All515
ORDERMithan Lal, J.1. This revision filed by the defendant arises out of an appellate Order refusing to restore the case.2. The plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and after number of adjournments the case was fixed for 20th July, 1956 for final hearing. On that date the defendant filed an application for adjournment on the ground of illness. This application was partly granted inasmuch as the defendant was given time till the 24th of July, 1956, for production of his evidence while the plaintiff's evidence was ordered to be recorded that very day. The defendant's counsel wanted time to prepare the case for cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses till after lunch. That time was also granted. When the case was taken up after lunch the defendant counsel stated that he had no instructions. After recording plaintiff's evidence the case was adjourned to 24thJuly, 1956 for judgment but even on that date the defendant failed to appear. The case was decided on mer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »