Himachal Pradesh Court July 1953 Judgments

Kedar Nand Vs. Jagat Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP31

ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is an application by one Kedar Nand for punishment of his brother Jagat Ram, Mohini and Chanani, nephew Harinand and Jagat Ram's daughters-in-law Mts. Amar Dei and Shankar Dei for contempt of Court under Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act (32 of 1952). 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and his aforesaid brothers the defendants in a suit instituted in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Mahasu for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled as possessory mortgagee to exclusive possession of certain land and for an Injunction to restrain the said defendants from interfering with his possession. After the in-stitution of the suit the plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C., restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of land. It is alleged in the present petition that in, spite of the service of the said prohibitory order the defendants cut the harvest from the land in question. It i...

Hari Dass Vs. Babu Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP16

ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. I have heard Sri K. C. Pandit Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, but see no reason to admit this revision. His argument is that the onus of proof with regard to issue No. 1 as to whether there did or did not exist a partnership has been wrongly placed on the defendant. If it be a fact, as contended by the learned counsel, that the plaintiff alleged a partnership and the defendant denied it, there seems to be force in his argument. But revisional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be availed of for the purpose of lifting wrongly-placed onus from the shoulders of one party and putting it on those of the other. The trial Court had the jurisdiction to put, the onus on a party, and the mere fact that it has erred in doing so would not justify interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner cites the case of -- 'Janki Das v. Kalu Ram', AIR 1936 Pat 250 (A). That was however a somewhat ex...

R.L. Gupta Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is a petition by one R. L. Guptaunder Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Himachal Pradesh for relief from an order of the Secretary Transport Himachal Pradesh Government, dated 1-11-1952, terminating his services as Costing and Statistics Superintendent Himachal Pradesh Government Transport.2. The petitioner's case is that he was selected and appointed substantively to the permanent civil post of Costing and Statistics Superintendent in the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport by the then Chief Commissioner on 11-7-1950 without any condition superimposed; that the appointment was subsequently communicated to him by means of a letter dated 13-7-1950 from the Registrar for the Secretary Finance and Development containing certain conditions as a matter of routine, two of the conditions being that he will be on probation for a period of one year in the first instance and that his services were liable to termination at any time without any notic...

Atma Ram Vs. Jhinoo Ram and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP17

ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is a second application by the defendant Atma Ram for revision of an interlocutory order of the trial Court, the first having been dismissed on 14-7-1952. That was an application directed against an order that the preliminary and the other issues be disposed of together. The present revision is directed against an order dated 28-11-1952 allowing the application of the plaintiff respondent under O. 6, R. 17, Civil P. C., to amend the plaint.2. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent Jhinoo Ram against Atma Ram for recovery of Rs. 5,500/- as unpaid balance ofprice of opium alleged to have been purchased by the defendant on 17-1-1948. The defendant was sued as gumashta of a licence-holder. The writing on foot of which the suit was filed purports to have been executed by the defendant as gumashta of one Nand Kishore. The defendant pleaded, inter alia, that as he was acting as an agent for Nand Kishore he was not personally liable. Two preliminary i...

Bakshi Sita Ram Vs. Lachhmi Chand and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP4

ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. One Lachhmi Chand, a shop-keeper of Nahan, was convicted by the learned Additional District Magistrate of that place under Section 161, read with S. 116, I. P. C., for offering bribe to the Government Advocate, Sri Bakshi Sita Ram. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him, and, while doing so, he remarked that it was not a genuine case of a bribe offered to a public servant but a case which was virtually instigated by Bakshi Sita Ram himself, and that whatever Bakshi Sita Bam did in the present case was most reprehensible and did not do credit to a person of his position and status. Bakshi Sita Ram moved District Magistrate for a Government appeal against the acquittal, but the government refused to appeal. Thereupon, he filed the present revision, praying that the acquittal be set aside and the aforesaid remarks expunged.2. Bakshi Sita Ram has since been transferred to Chamba. He himself argued this revision, which was opposed on behalf of Lachhmi Chan...

Nirma and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1953HP126

ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is an application by three men, Nirma, Jango and Phurkhu, under Section 526, Cr. P. Code, for the transfer of a case pending against them for an offence under Section 435, I. P. C., in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class at Theog on the ground that they do not expect a fair and impartial trial at the hands of the said Magistrate.2. The allegations of the petitioners are that the Challan was submitted before the Court at about 6.15 p. m. on 11-5-1953, that the Magistrate took up the case immediately at that late hour despite the request of the petitioners to adjourn the case so as to have the opportunity of calling from Simla Sri K. C. Pandit Advocate to defend them; that a local pleader Sri B. D. Suri, whom the petitioners had to engage at the spur of the moment, did not have the requisite opportunity of preparing himself before the production of the prosecution evidence on that evening, and his oral request for a copy of the first information report, whic...