Himachal Pradesh Court August 1956 Judgments

Amar Chand Butail Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDER(14) Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.(15) There remains the question of costs. Although I have held that there has been no wilful default on the part of respondents 1 and 2, still the fact remains that they have been guilty of laches and their replies were not in the proper form. I, therefore, leave parties to bear their respective costs of this appeal....

Amolak Singh and ors. Vs. Punjab University

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1957HP31

ORDERRamabhadran, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution made by four candidates, who appeared for the LL.B. Pass Examination of the Punjab University held in May, 1956, at Jullundur centre (Boaba College, Jullundur). On 38-5-1956, at 8 A.M., the question paper on the Law of Evidence was distributed among the candidates assembled in the hall, including the present petitioners.A pandemonium ensued, presumably because some of the candidates thought that the question paper was unduly stiff. Stools and desks were overturned. Some of the candidates tried to jump out through the windows. Since orderly conduct of the examination became impossible, all the answer-books were collected and the hall was cleared.2. The matter was reported to the University authorities by the Superintendent of the examination hall. Eventually, the petitioners were disqualified for one year by the University authorities under Regulation 18 (ii) of the University. Hence, this writ petitio...

Nanak Chand Vs. Paras Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

(1) This revision petition, by a defendant, arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Theog on 7-5-1956, purporting to restore an application under Order 9, Rule 9 (which had been dismissed in default on 14-1-1955) in the exercise of his inherent powers under Section 151, Civil P. C.(2) The following dates are material in this case. The suit, giving rise to the present revision petition, was instituted on 1-10-1954. It was dismissed in default of the plaintiff on 3-11-1954.An application under Order 9, Rule 9, was filed by the plaintiff on 13-11-1954, seeking the restoration of the suit. This application was also dismissed in default of the plaintiff on 14-1-1955. On 26-3-1955, an application, purporting to be under Section 151, Civil P. C., was put in by the plaintiff, wherein the inherent powers of the Court were invoked to restore the application under Order 9, Rule 9.(3) On notice of the application under Section 151, Civil P. C., being given to the defendant, the l...