Himachal Pradesh Court September 1980 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.
Smt. Dwarkoo and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP29
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The appellants/ petitioners have filed this application _ praying that the appeal be proceeded with and disposed of, without bringing on record unknown legal representatives of the deceased Bardoo (previously respondent No. 9).2. The facts relevant to dispose of this petition may be briefly stated. Bardoo deceased was one of the respondents in this appeal. He is stated to have died on 9th March, 1979. After the appellants came to know about the death of Bardoo they filed an application (C.M.P. No. 728 of 1'979) for bringing his legal representatives on record. Since there was a short delay in filing the application, an application No. C.M.P. 729/1979 was also filed by the appellants to condone the delay. Both the applications were allowed by this Court. By an order dated 21st of August, 1979 Shri Sukh Dev alias Dev, was ordered to be brought on record, as the legal representative of the deceased. On 28th of May, 1980 Shri Arun Goel Advocate, appeared on behalf of Sukh...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Sunita Kumari
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP32
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J. 1. The appellant-petitioner has filed this application under Section 151 read with Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that he may be permitted to produce additional evidence in the case. It is stated in the ap-plication that due to his inadvertence the respondent and the petitioner could not be medically examined and as such the medical evidence so vital for determining the point in controversy, is not adduced. It is also stated that in case the respondent and the petitioner are medically examined, it would be clear that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage and that the petitioner-appellant has not indulged in sexual intercourse up-till now. The application is supported by an affidavit. . In reply to the application, the respondent, inter alia, has stated that the appellant under the garb of the present application cannot be permitted to fill in tha gap and lacuna in the case. It is further submitted that in case the application...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›