Skip to content

Himachal Pradesh Court April 1976 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.

Apr 28 1976

Amar Chand Vs. Firm Dasondhi Mal Kuljas Rai and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Apr-28-1976

Reported in: AIR1977HP58

D.B. Lal, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Kulu, wherein an application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. The appellant was defendant in a suit filed by M/s. Firm Dasondhi Mal Kuljas Rai for specific performance of a contract of sale of timber and in the alternative for recovery of damages in lieu thereof. The material dales during the course of hearing 'commenced from 20-9-71 when after the plaintiffs' evidence was over the defendant was asked to produce his evidence on 7-10-1971.2. On 7-10-1971 the defendant asked for adjournment and 26-10-1971 was fixed. On 26-10-1971 again the defendant asked for adjournment and 24-11-1971 was fixed. On 24-11-1971 the defendant again asked for adjournment and the Court ordered him to pay Rs. 16 as costs and further ordered:'If evidence is not produced by that date the defence will be struck off as the case is oldest one.''On 8-12-1971 ...


Apr 27 1976

The State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. Vs. Himachal Rice Mills

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Apr-27-1976

Reported in: AIR1977HP12

C.R. Thakur, J.1. M/s. Himachal Rice Mills, Thakurdwara, Nurpur, filed awrit petition challenging the validity of two notifications dated November 4, 1974, issued by the Governor of Himachai Pradesh. By one notification the Governor had promulgated the Himachal Pradesh Rice Procurement (Price Control) Order, 1974, and under Clause 3 thereof the procurement price for raw and boiled rice of the varieties specified in column 1 of the Schedule to be procured from any dealer by the State Government was not to exceed the price specified in column 2 thereof with respect to each variety. By the other notification the Governor promulgated the Himachal Pradesh Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1974. Under Clause 3 of that Levy Order every licenced miller was required to sell to the State Government or the agencies nominated by the Government at the controlled price (a) 85% of the quantity of rice held in stock by him at the commencement of this order, and (b) 85% of the total quantity of rice milled,...


Apr 27 1976

Lakshmi Chand Sood Vs. Shankar Lal Pal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Apr-27-1976

Reported in: AIR1976HP16

R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The petitioner applies in revision under Section 21 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 against an order of the Controller refusing to stay the proceedings for his eviction until the determination of the fair rent.2. There is a residential building called 'Mann House' situated at Shankli in Simla. The respondent is the owner, and the petitioner is the tenant of suite No. 9 therein.3. On April 13, 1972 the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 for the determination of the fair rent of the accommodation occupied by him. That proceeding remained pending for almost six months and has not yet been disposed of.4. On September 28, 1972 the respondent applied under Section 14 (2) (i) of the Act asserting that the tenancy of the petitioner had been terminated by notice, that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from April 1, 1972 to September 30, 1972 calculated in terms of the contractual r...


Apr 23 1976

Almu Vs. Gusaoon

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Apr-23-1976

Reported in: AIR1977HP33

R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a defendant's revision petition against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi allowing an amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was in joint ownership and possession of certain parcels of land and was entitled to claim partition thereof. The defendant contested the suit and alleged that the suit was incompetent as the plaintiff was out of possession on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, a declaratory relief alone was not competent. Sometime later the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint alleging that he had been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and claimed permission to amend the plaint so as to include a relief for possession also. The defendant took two grounds against the amendment application. One was that if the amendment was allowed it would result in changing the cause of action. The other ground was that the amendment application had been moved mala fi...


Apr 23 1976

Simla Wholesale Mart Vs. Baishnodas Kishori Lal Bhalla and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Apr-23-1976

Reported in: AIR1977HP29

ORDERD.B. Lal, J. 1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 60,000/-. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants purchased goods from the plaintiffs and in that connection advanced certain payments. The cheques issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs were dishonoured and as such the plaintiffs have ascertained a definite sum which according to them is due from the defendants. The contest of the defendants in their written statement is that the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into business dealing and their account was open, mutual and current. The said account is not yet finally settled, and unless that is done no definite amount can be found as due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. There is also an objection as to the payment of interest because according to thedefendants the same was never stipulated. In fact, according to defendants, they withheld payment because either goods defective in quality were received or there was short supply of goods. ...


Apr 23 1976

Suraj Mani and anr. Vs. Kishori Lal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Apr-23-1976

Reported in: AIR1976HP74

ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a defendant's revision petition against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi allowing a substitution application.2. One Hari Krishan filed a suit for possession. On December 10, 1971 he died. An application for substitution as his legal representative was made by the respondent Kishori Lal. Kishori Lal claimed that the deceased had executed a will in his favour. The will was a registered document. The claim to substitution was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the will was invalid and the legal representatives of Hari Krishan were in fact his sons and daughters. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge examined the material on the record and came to the finding that the will was a reliable document and operative in law and that therefore the respondent was entitled to be brought on the record as the legal representative of Hari Krishan. That order was made on November 1, 1974. Against that order the petitioner now applies in re...


Apr 20 1976

Karam Singh Vs. Ram Rachhpal Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Decided on: Apr-20-1976

Reported in: AIR1977HP28

R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff s revision petition directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Kalpa rejecting a plaint.2. The plaintiff filed an amended plaint on July 25, 1975, but It was not signed and verified by the plaintiff himself or by his Mukhtiar. It was signed by the plaintiff's pleader. Because neither the plaintiff nor his Mukhtiar had signed the amended plaint, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has rejected the plaint. It seems to me that the requirement in Rules 14 and 15 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a plaint should be signed by the party and should be verified by him are purely matters of procedure, and it is always open to such party to make good the deficiency at a later stage. I am fortified in this view by All India Reporter Ltd. Bombay v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar, AIR 1961 Bom 292. The proper course for the learned Senior Subordinate .Judge was to have given an opportunity to the plaintiff or his Mukhtiar to sign...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial