Himachal Pradesh Court August 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.
Budhia Vs. Dhani Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP1
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This purports to be an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u), Civil P. C., against an order of remand made by the learned District Judge of Mahasu under Order 41, Rule 23, read with Section 151, Civil P. C. For reasons stated in this Court's order dated 19-5-1955, it was held that the present appeal was incompetent.Consequently, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, the memorandum of appeal was treated as a revision petition and admitted on the point that the lower appellate Court had exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity in permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, i.e. by adding a prayer for possession. 2. Yesterday, I heard learned counsel for the parties. As I shall show presently, the petition cannot succeed. 3.Mr. Thakar Das for the petitioner argued that, by permitting the amendment, the lower appellate Court had given the plaintiffs an opportunity to change the nature of the suit and the cause of action altogether. He urge...
S.E. Dean Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP8
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. The petitioner applied to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that a writ be issued to the Himachal Pradesh Government directing the re-instatement of the petitioner as junior clerk. That petition was rejected by this Court on 29-6-1955 without issuing notice to the respondent. The petitioner now prays for grant of a certificate to enable her to appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition purports to be one under Article 132 of the Constitution. As is obvious from the perusal of that Article, a certificate could be granted only if the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. 3. Learned counsel urged that, in the present case, there arises a question of interpretation of Article 311 of the Constitution. As was pointed out by me in my order of the 29th June last (following--'Jawanti Prasad v. State of U. P.', AIR 1951 All 793 (A)), the peti...
Hira Vs. B.D. Kashyap and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP38
1. This revision petition by a defendant arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 470/on the basis of an agreement. Having regard to the proviso (ii) to para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, the revision petition is incompetent.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this may then be treated as a revision petition under para. 35(1) (a), Himachal Pradesh (Courts); Order. As was pointed out by this Court in--'Mandir Shri Deota Jakh v. Sheshi Ram', AIR 1955 Him Pra 5(A):'Under proviso (ii) to para. 35, 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. 1,000/-. The expression 'small cause suit' has been defined in para. 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. While under sub-para, (b) the Court could act on an application, it would act suo motu under sub-para, (a). There is nothing to...
Amarnath and anr. Vs. Jai Dayal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP63
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This revision petition by judgment-debtors fails on more than one ground.2. In the first place, this petition arises out of execution proceedings relating, admittedly, to a suit of the nature of small causes of less than Rs. 1,000/- valuation. Therefore, it is expressly barred by proviso (ii) to para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order.3. Confronted with this difficulty, learned: counsel for the petitioners suggested that the Courts below have acted, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, with material irregularity. The point, at issue, is a very simple one. The petitioners-judgment-debtors pleaded adjustment of the decree outside the Court. Both the Courts below have rightly pointed out that such adjustment should have been certified under Order 21, Rule 2(2), Civil P. O.Instead of adopting this course, the judgment-debtors filed an objection purporting to be under Section 47, alleging that the matter has been adjusted out of Court. Obviously, such an objecti...
Hari Dass Vs. Budhu and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP42
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. This revision petition by a plaintiff arises out of an interlocutory order passed in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 492/-, representing the price of eight trees, alleged to have been sold by the defendants. Proviso (ii) to para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, expressly debars a revision application in such a suit. In an extreme case, this Court could interfere under para. 35(1)(a), provided it appears that the Court below acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity, in passing the order sought to be revised. As I shall show presently, such is not the case here.2. The order, in question, was one refusing to stay the proceedings in the suit pending the disposal of a revision petition in this Court. In declining to stay proceedings, the trial Court remarked that the revision petition, then pending in this Court, did not relate to the five trees in question. The revision petition, in question, arose out of a declaratory suit respecti...
Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram and anr. Vs. Jai Ram Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1955HP57
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. These are two cross appeals and they arise out of a suit filed by Jai Ram and Ganga Bam against Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,534/10/-. The plaintiffs' case was that they were carrying on business at Simla styled as 'Firm Jai Ram Ganga Ram', while the defendants, similarly, carried on business in the name of Firm 'Bijai Ram and Co.'On 31-3-1936, the latter took over the assetsand liabilities of the former firm for a sum of Rs. 26,054/13/3. They also took over the business of a third firm styled as 'Firm Daya Ram Jai Ram.'In place of the three firms, a new firm styled 'M/s Bhandari Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram and Co.' came into existence with a capital of Rs. 16,000/-Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram had eight-anna share in the firm, while Jai Ram Ganga Ram and Daya Ram had four-anna share each. The plaintiffs' case was that the sum of Rs. 26,054/13/3, plus interest thereupon, was due to them from the defendants less a sum of Rs. 2,420/8/3, for which they had ...
Kansi Ram Vs. Jai Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP4
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal, which arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 8,500/- (Rs. 5,000- principal plus Rs. 3,500/-interest) on the basis of a loan, alleged to have been taken by Jai Ram, defendant 1, from the plaintiff, Kanshi Ram, and his father, Bijai Ram, for the benefit of the defendants' family trade business. There were five defendants, namely, Jar Ram and his four brothers, Gopi Ham, Ganga Ram, Durga and Govind, as well as one pro forma defendant, with whom, we are not concerned. The plaintiff's case was that in his capacity, as Manager of tile joint Hindu family (consisting of the defendants), Jai Ram took the loan from the plaintiff and his father on 19-3-1993B. It was stated that the loan had been taken for the benefit of the joint Hindu family. 2. The suit was resisted by Jai Ram and Ganga Ram on the following grounds:-- In the first place, it was categorically denied that Jai Ram, defendant 1. had borrowed the money for the benefit of the joi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›