Skip to content

Himachal Pradesh Court July 1963 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.

Jul 27 1963

Lachhmi Ram Vs. Smt. Prabhoo

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Jul-27-1963

Reported in: AIR1964HP1

C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge Mahasu, whereby a petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable.2. The petitioner was married to the respondent. About 13 months prior to the filing of the petition the respondent left the house of the petitioner and subsequently a male child, for securing whose custody, the present petition has been filed, was born at the house of the respondent's parents. The marriage between the parties has been declared to be null and void) as a result of a petition filed by the respondent. The learned Senior Sub Judge, was of the opinion that as the child for securing whose custody the petition under consideration was filed was not removed from the custody of the petitioner, it was not maintainable.3. The only question that arises for decision is as to whether the petition was maintainable. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Guard...


Jul 03 1963

Jagan Nath Vs. Mehar Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Jul-03-1963

Reported in: AIR1963HP53

Capoor, J.C.1. This application in revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Districts whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge Sirmur dismissing the suit filed by him was rejected.2. The preliminary question that arises for consideration is as to whether the application in revision is competent.3. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the second proviso to para 35 (1) (b) of Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order 1948, hereinafter to be referred as the Courts Order is in conflict with Section 15 (2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act No. IX of 1887. The relevant portions of those provisions read as below :'Para 35 (1) of the Courts Order- (1) The Court of Judicial Commissioner may call for the record of any case which has been decided by a Civil Court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies to it, and ________________...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial