Himachal Pradesh Court June 1955 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.
Balanand Vs. Kamala Nand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1955HP63
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraud. The Subordinate Judge of Rohru decreed the suit and that decision was upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge of Mahasu. The value of the suit and of the appeal having, been Rs. 200/-, no second appeal lies.Under para 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, however, it is open to this Court to interfere in revision, where there is an important question of law or custom, requiring further consideration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. Code, was unsuccessful, a separate suit to set aside the ex parte decree was barred by res judicata. This objection was apparently not taken before the trial Court. It was, however, argued before the learned District Judge, who has pointed out that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was dismissed on a point of limitation and, consequently, the suit was not b...
Kharanta and anr. Vs. Kirpa and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1955HP56
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. Kharanta and Jhainku sued Kirpa and others in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chopal for a sum of Rs. 250/-, representing the price of grass grazed upon by their cattle. The defendants contested the suit, firstly, on the ground that the plaintiffs had no rights in the 'ghasni' and, secondly, their cattle had not grazed on the said 'ghasni'. The Subordinate Judge of Chopal granted a decree for Rs. 50/-. In appeal by the defendants, the Senior Subordinate Judge of Mahasu set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs now seek to come up in second appeal. There, is an affidavit by Kharanta to the effect that the value of the property involved in the appeal is more than Rs. 3,000/-. As such it is argued that a second appeal is competent. 2. The suit, as already mentioned, was one to recover a sum of Rs. 250/- as damages caused by the grazing of the defendants' cattle. Therefore, the only property involved in the case was the grass, ...
Vidyadhar and anr. Vs. Sita Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP2,1956CriLJ45
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. These are two connected petitions, which are styled as petitions under Section, 439, Cr.P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 115, Civil P. C. The petitions arise under the following circumstances:--2. The petitioner, Vidyadhar, filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Solan, on 19-12-1949 against Sita Ram, respondent 1, complaining of trespass and damage. There was a further allegation that the defendant was raising a wall, round the tank, with a view to construct a room there and the same was likely to cause obstruction to the water-pipes and the tank.The plaintiff (Vidyadhar), therefore, sought a perpetual injunction restraining Sita Ram from committing the aforesaid acts of trespass and a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the structure erected by him. In support of his claim, the plaintiff filed a plan of the house and the garden showing the encroachments made by the defendant.He also filed certain extract...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›