Himachal Pradesh Court March 1955 Judgments

The State Vs. Krishnu Mal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. This was originally admitted as a second appeal, but, for reasons stated in this Court's order.dated 21-12-1954, it was held that no second appeal lies in this case. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, the memorandum of appeal was treated as a revision petition. This revision petition was admitted on the point that the learned District Judge has created an impossible situation by giving findings on issues 1 and 2 and remanding the case for decision on the remaining issues.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that one Krishnu Mal filed a suit against the former State of Bilaspur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,997/2/- by way of damages for alleged breach of contract. His case was that he had purchased the arms and ammunition contract for Bhakra for a period of 15 months from the 1st of Poll 2004 B. for a sum of Rs. 3,700/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 925/- at the time of auction and the balance was to be paid ...

Om Chand and ors. Vs. Lalman and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. In this appeal by judgment-debtors against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Mandi, rejecting their objections under Section 47, C. P. C., learned counsel urges that the pending execution petition is time-barred and the finding of the Court below to the contrary is erroneousr 2. To understand the point at issue, the following facts may be stated: Lalman (the respondent here) filed a suit against Brikam Das, Mayadhar (father of the appellants) and one Ramditta, Mal for the recovery of Rs. 8,250/-, with interest. The suit was dismissed as against Ramditta Mal on 23-10-1992 B., presumably, under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. The suit then proceeded against the remaining defendants. On 13-12-1992 B., the latter made a statement, admitting the plaintiff's claim, and, thereupon, a decree was passed against them on the same day for Rs. 8,250/-, plus interest and costs. It would appear that the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order dated 23-10-1992 (dismissing the suit as...

Nazroo and anr. Vs. Lalman and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Ramabhadran, J.C.1. These purport to be two cross second appeals, which arise out of a suit filed by Lalman for the ejectment of Nazroo from two shops, numbered 3 and 4, situate at Ant, and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 424/S/- as.arrears of rent. Lalman's case was that he had leased out these shops to Nazroo on payment of rent and that Nazroo had defaulted with the rent. Consequently, Lalman claimed a decree for the ejectment of Nazroo and for arrears of rent mentioned above. 2. Nazroo, while admitting that he had taken shop No. 3 on rent from Lalman, contended that he was not liable to ejectment at the instance of Lalman, because, according to him, Lalman was not the proprietor of the shop. As regards shop No. 4, he denied that he had taken it on rent from the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment as far as shop No. 3 was concerned, along with a sum of Rs. 60/8/- as arrears of rent. The suit was, however, dismissed as far as shop No. 4 was concerned, since, in ...

Luharo and ors. Vs. Lafiya and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1955HP61

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of court-fee. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit, giving rise to this appeal, was really one for declaration and the prayer for correction of the entries in the revenue records was an unnecessary surplusage. In fact, he pointed out that the civil court could not legally direct the correction of the revenue record. He, therefore, contended that as a suit for declaration, the court-fee paid, i.e., Rs. 15/-, was in accordance with Schedule II, Article 17 (iii), Court-fees (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1952.2. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that we must look to the plaint as it stands. He urged that it was immaterial whether the consequential relief, claimed in the plaint, could be granted by the civil Court or not.3. It seems to me that, in construing the plaint, the Court must look at the substance of the plaint rather than at its mere form. I am ...

Ganga Ram Vs. Mt. Saradhu and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1955HP25

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. In this review petition, I am requested to review the order passed by my learned, predecessor on 4-6-1951, allowing second appeal 6 of 1950, brought by Mt. Saradhu against the appellate decree of the learned District Judge of Bilaspur. Review is sought on the following two grounds: Firstly, that subsequent to the decision of ny learned predecessor, the petitioner has discovered an important piece of documentary evidence, namely, an entry in the Bahi alleged to have been executed by Thutha, husband of Mt. Saradhu, and his brother, Naurata, in favour of one Basia on 23rd Bhado 1970 S. It is claimed that this entry indicates that Thutha and Naurata borrowed Rs. 300/- for purchase of their share in the suit land. Secondly, that my teamed predecessor acted illegally in rejecting the statement made by Mt. Saradhu on 11th Poh 1977 before the Ijlas-i-alia at Bilaspur.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as the entry in the Bahi dated 23rd Bhado 1970...