Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT2(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. The revision is against the order passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur, arising out of the order dated 30-9-2000.2. The applicants filed a suit for eviction against the respondent under Sections 12(1) (b) and 12(1) (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant filed an application on 18-9-2000 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, on the ground that the landlord has demolished the portion as well as the wall in his possession which causes disturbance to the privacy and has made the accommodation not habitable. The landlord denied and filed reply opposing applicants. The Trial Court dismissed the application. An appeal was preferred by the tenant against the order passed by the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court by impugned order has allowed the appeal and after considering the material available on record in great detail, has issued directions contained in para 9 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT105(CG)
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgment shall disposes of Criminal Appeal No. 253/2001 (Mannu and others v. State of Chhattisgarh), Criminal Appeal No. 254/2001 (Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh) and Criminal Appeal No. 277/2001 (Mannu v. State of Chhattisgarh).2. All the appellants well described in Criminal Appeal No. 253/2001 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26-2-2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 188/2000 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (Shri A.K. Samantre) convicting the appellants under Sections 147,148 and 302/149, IPC sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life respectively and, to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 302, IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, have filed these appeals.3. In all ten persons were prosecuted in relation to aforesaid offences. Criminal Appeal No. 253/2001 was filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT32(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. When the decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1/decrcc holder was put into execution, the present applicant made an application under Rules 97/98 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure pleading inter alia that he being the third party to the decree and as he is in possession of the property in his own rights, in execution of the said decree passed against respondent No. 2 the present applicant could not be dispossessed. The decree holder/ respondent No. 1 contested the said application. The Trial Court rejected the application observing that an application under Rules 97/98 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable at the instance of a third party who was still in possession of the property. It accordingly rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said rejection the objector has come to this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the rejectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT27(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The present applicant Hazi Mohammad Hanif Qureshi filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Sakti. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 86-A/1993. In the said suit, the plaintiff claimed a declaration, a decree for possession, mesne profits etc. The non-applicants/defendants contested the suit on all possible grounds inter alia pleading that the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was illegal. They, however, did not plead that the sale deed was executed by a minor in favour of the plaintiff.2. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the plaintiff took up the matter in the appeal. In the said appeal, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 made an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC and filed a certificate showing that the date of birth of the vendor of the plaintiff was 11-7-1960, In the said application, it was further contended that the docum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT7(CG)
ORDERU.S. Garg, J.1. The applicants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 21-4-2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2000 rejecting the plaintiffs application for adjournment and closing his right to lead further evidence has come to this Court.2. Though Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Advocate General has fairly conceded that the order may be set aside and the case may be remanded back to the Trial Court for its disposal in accordance with law, but the manner in which learned Trial Court has acted and rejected the plaintiffs' application persuades me to write few words.3. From the orders passed by the Court-below it appears that the plaintiff Laxman Prasad made an application under Order 17 Rule 1, CPC seeking adjournment on the ground that in an accident he had suffered fracture of his ribs, said plaster was removed on 17-4-2001 and the plaintiff was required to take complete rest as per the advice of the doctor.4. From the order passed by the Court-below it does not appear t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT9(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The Claims Tribunal has made an award of Rs. 3,500/- with interest and cost in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1. 2. The appellant Insurance Company aggrieved by the said award has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When this Court confronted learned counsel appearing for the appellant with Section 173 of the Act in relation to the maintainability of the appeal, learned counsel submits that a bare perusal and intelligible understanding of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 173 would make it clear that if there are more than one award in relation to the same accident then bar under Section 173(2) shall not apply. 3. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under --'173, Appeals.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(4)MPHT47(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. Present is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 16-2-2001 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Soorajpur (Sarguja) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2/2001.2. The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit in which they had made an application for grant of injunction. In the said suit the defendant also made an application for grant of injunction. The Trial Court rejected the defendants application therefore he preferred an appeal under clause (r) of Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and restricted the present applicants/plaintiffs from making interference with the defendant's possession over the suit land. Against the order passed in appeal granting injunction in favour of the defendant, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. On being asked about the maintainability of this appeal learned counsel submits t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT80(CG)
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The plaintiffs/appellants along with the suit made an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also made a prayer that their suit be treated to be a representative suit or in the alternative their suit be treated to be instituted under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents/defendants contested the applications and inter-alia pleaded that the suit was filed with ulterior motive, the plaintiffs have no civil right intheir favour and in a case like present a suit in the representative capacity could not be filed nor it could be deemed to be a suit under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the matter was registered as civil suit but the questions were kept open. The learned trial Court heard the matter mainly on the question whether leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be granted or in the alternative the suit could be deemed to be one under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT17(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J. 1. On 30-11-2000, after going through the case diary, this Court had made number of observations. This Court recorded that the accused persons were taken into custody and were kept in lock-up on 13-11-2000 but their arrest memos were prepared on 14-11-2000. This Court also recorded that on 13th, no information was given to the parents/relations of the accused persons that they have been taken into custody. This Court also recorded that in relation to accused Neeraj Tiwari, two arrest memos were available on the record. One was showing that the arrest was effected at 1600 hours while the other was showing the arrest at 1530 hours. This Court also noticed that in each of the arrest memo, there was overwriting in the column provided for time of arrest. The said two Police Officers were given number of opportunities to explain their conduct and to explain before this Court as to why such actions were taken by them, but every time they submitted to the Court that in haste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT43(CG)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The applicant/defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 8-4-2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-B/94 by the learned District Judge, Ambikapur, rejecting defendant-applicant's counter claim submitted under Order 8 Rule 6-A holding that the counter claim is ex facie barred by limitation, therefore the same could not be allowed.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit on 12-1-1994 seeking certain decree in his favour. On 12-8-1994 the defendant filed his written statement and thereafter on 4-5-1998 had made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the said application the applicant-defendant wanted to incorporate a counter-claim. The said application was rejected by the lower Court therefore the defendant came to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Revision No. 1189/98, The petition came up for hearing on 24-74998 and the High Court while maintaining the order passed by the trial Court granted opportunity to the defendant to make a duly ...
Tag this Judgment!