Himachal Pradesh Court June 1974 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.
Raja Virbhadra Singh Vs. Roshanlal Kuthiala and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This is an application under Order 14. Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code and the question relates to the amendment of the preliminary issue upon jurisdiction framed by my learned brother Thakur, J., in a manner so that the burden of proof is levied upon the plaintiff and not upon the defendants. The application arises in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff Raja Virbhadra Singh has filed this suit for recovery of rupees one lac and odd from Messrs. Ro-shan Lal Kuthiala forest contractors Pa-thankot and others, and the facts culminating in a cause of action as alleged in the plaint are that an amount of Rupees 50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 24-6-1962 at Simla, that with the consent obtained from the plaintiff at Simla another amount of Rupees 50,000/- was transferred from Yamuna-nagar to Pathankot. that the statement of account was rendered to the plainiff at Simla, and that communication admitting the liability was sent-and verbal d...
Lehri and ors. Vs. Mirchu and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J. 1. This is a defendants' revision petition directed against an order dated September 4, 1972, of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Kangra, at Nurpur permitting an amendment of theplaint.2. On July 27, 1970, the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala allowed an appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that it should consider the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case came up for consideration before the learned Subordinate Judge, and by an order dated September 4, 1972 he allowed the application subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rupees 10/-. It appears from the order that the costs were paid by the plaintiffs and received by counsel for the defendants. The defendants now pray for relief against that order.3. It seems to me that the revision petition cannot be allowed. The order permitted amendment of the plaint sub-jeer to payment of costs. It was a...
Bansilal Vs. Kanshi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1974
Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a tenant'srevision petition under paragraph 35 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948 against an order of the learned District Judge. Solan vacating an interim injunction granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Solan 2. On December 1, 1969 the landlord of shop No. 243. Chowk Bazar, Solan, filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of the tenant from the shop On May 25, 1970 the Rent Controller framed a number of issues. Before any evidence could be recorded, the parties entered into a compromise on July 29. 1970 under which the tenant agreed to vacate the accommodation after one and a half year's. A statement was made by the tenant before the Rent Controller setting out the terms of the compromise. On the same date, the Rent Controller parsed an order of eviction in terms of the compromise. In the result the tenant was to vacate the premises by February 1, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›