Himachal Pradesh Court July 1954 Judgments

Mandir Shri Deota Jakh Vs. Sheshi Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1955HP5

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. This revision petition arises out of a money suit for the recovery of Rs. 360/-. The Subordinate Judge of Rohru decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned District Judge of Mahasu set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suit. Hence this revision petition and the prayer made herein is that the decree of the District Judge be set aside.2. Under the proviso (ii) paragraph 35 of the Himachal Pradesh, (Courts) Order no revision petition, as contemplated in paragraph 35 (1) (b), can be admitted in a Small Cause Suit under the value of Rs. 1000/-. The expression 'Small Cause Suit' has been denned in paragraph 2 (v) of the Order as a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The present suit, obviously, comes within that definition. Its valuation was less than Rs. 1000/- and, therefore, in view of proviso (ii) to paragraph 35 the revision petition is incompetent.3. Learned Counsel argued...

NaraIn Das Vs. State

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. The appellant, Narain Das, was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted him of an offence under Section 326, Penal Code and sentenced him to transportation for life. This appeal was originally filed through the Superintendent of the jail. Subsequently Mr. K. C. Pandit, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and argued the appeal.2. The prosecution case was that on 30-12-1952 the appellant committed the murder of one Dila Ram, Pujari of Deota Chhatarmukh of Mehlan under the following circumstances : A Pu1a ceremony was to be held that day and, In accordance with local custom, goats were to be sacrificed, at the temple. The appellant and Dila Ram (victim in this case) belonged to the Jharik family and the arrangement was that the first goat to be sacrificed that day was to be provided by the appellant. Early in the morning Dila Ram shouted from the courtyard of the te...

State of Himachal Pradesh, Through Narsingh Dass, Govt. Advocate Vs. S ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This is a revision petition against an order impleading certain persons as parties to the suit under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(2), Civil P. C. The former State of Bilaspur brought a suit for possession of certain lands and houses on the ground that the defendant was in possession illegally. One of the grounds taken by the defendant in his written statement was that certain necessary parties had been left out. Thereupon a specific issue in this regard wasframed by the Subordinate Judge, who came to the conclusion that certain persons, who were , vitally interested in the result of the suit, had been left out. Consequently, he directed the plaintiff to implead these persons as defendants. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the view of the Subordinate Judge is erroneous and that the muafl grant in favour of the persons, now ordered to be impleaded, was resumed by the Chief Commissioner, Bilaspur, on 14-8-1951. It is, therefore, contended th...

Madho Ram Vaid Vs. Dr. Manohar Lal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1955HP41

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. This is styled as a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, wherein I am requested to set aside the order of the District Judge, Mahasu, acting as an appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh. The petition bears court-fee stamps of Rs. 2/-. There is an office objection to the effect that the petition should bear court-fees of Rs. 10/- under Article 22 of Schedule II of the Court-fees (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the court-fee paid is sufficient, since the petition does not fall under Article 22 but under Article l(d)(iii) to the Second Schedule. 2. Since a question of court-fee was involved, notice was issued to the learned Government Advocate and I have heard him as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of court-fee. Article 22 of Schedule. II would apply if the present application can be ...

Gian Chand Madhok Vs. the State

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP76

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. These are five connected petitions under Article 228 of the Constitution, read with Section 561A, Cr. P. C., and the prayer made therein is that proceedings pending against the petitioner, under Section 409, I. P. C., in the Court of Mr. Chandel, Magistrate first class, Nahan, be quashed. The petitions arise under the following circumstances: The petitioner, Sri Gian Chand Madhok, was formerly employed by the State Government as a District Forest Officer. He is being prosecuted under Section 409, I. P. C., in five different cases. The petitioner's contention is that he could be prosecuted, if at all, only under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) and not under Section 409, I. P. C., as the latter section has, according to him, been repealed by the former Act. This point was agitated before the trial Magistrate, who, however, overruled his contention. Hence these petitions.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The foll...

Debnu Vs. State

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP79

Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This is a petition under Section 526 (1) (e). Criminal P. C., wherein I am requested to direct that a case against the petitioner and seven others under Section 201, read with Sections 194, 149 and 34, I. P. C., pending in the Court of Mr. Chandel, Magistrate first class, exercising Section 30 powers, at Nahan) be committed to the Court of Sessions. The petition, as originally filed, was on behalf of Debnu alone. Subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioner filed his power for the remaining accused persons.2. The petition arises under the following cir-cumstances: Debnu, petitioner, is being prosecuted in another case under Section 302, I. P. C. That case has been committed to the Sessions on the 26th-of the last month, vide a certified copy of the commitment order on the record. The prosecution case was that one Ajba murdered Lachmi Singh, and Mt. Kukmi and Debnu, in his turn, murdered Ajba. Debnu and the remaining accused persons removed the bodies of Lachmi S...