Himachal Pradesh Court October 1964 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.
Sham Lal Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965HP37,1965CriLJ99
ORDEROm Prakash, J.C.1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Sessions Division. The facts, giving rise to the revision-petition, are as follows:Shri Jagan Nath, a pleader at Solan, had lodged a report at the Police Station, Solan, on 11-7-62, that the petitioner had committed criminal trespass, in his house, on 10-7-62, at about 11.30 P. M., with an intention to beat him and had actually beaten him with a stick. The police registered a case, under Section 452 I. P. C., against the petitioner, on the basis of the above report. On 16-7-62, the aforesaid pleader submitted an application to the Magistrate First Class, Solan, alleging that the police was unduly delaying the completion of the investigation of the case. The Magistrate, First Class, by his order, dated 16-7-62, called for the relevant papers of the case, from the police. The aforesaid order, however, was not readily complied with.Shri Jagan Nath...
Krishan Dev Vs. Smt. Ram Piari
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965HP23
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. This is a petition, for the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal, to the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, against an order, dated the 20th June, 1964, of this Court, whereby, Civil Revision Petition No. 10 of 1963, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed'. That revision petition had arisen out of a suit, brought by the respondent, for possession of a portion of a site, comprised in khasra No. 19, situated in bazar Badah, after demolition of the structures, put up by the petitioner. The allegation of the respondent, in the suit, was that she was the owner of the site and the petitioner had unlawfully encroached upon a portion of it, by putting up structures. The petitioner denied that the portion, encroached upon, belonged to the respondent. His plea was that the portion, formed part of the land, which he had purchased'. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, who had tried the suit, held that the petitioner had unlawfully encroached upon, and put up structures, o...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›