Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1977Kant152; 1977(1)KarLJ69
ORDER1. This petition under S. 115 of the Civil P.C is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Buntwal, whereby he deleted one of the issues raised in the suit. 2. The relevant facts are these :Respondent 1 filed a suit for recovery of possession of a property described in the plaint as shop building The said building, according to the plaint averments , was leased to defendant 1 under a rent bond dated 1-10-1971 on a monthly rent bond dated 1-10-1971 on a monthly rental of Rs. 7/- It is said that contrary to the terms of the rent bond, defendant 1 has sublet the said shop to defendant 2. Defendant 1 while resisting the suit has , inter alia , contended that he has no not sublet the building ; that he has made improvements to it to the extent of Rs.600/- and what has been let out of him is an agricultural holding . He also contended that he is an agricultural labourer.3. On these contentions, the trail court framed as many as 7 issues. Out of which only issue No. 3 is releva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1977Kant153; ILR1977KAR234; 1977(1)KarLJ55
ORDER1. In this writ petition the only grievance of the petitioner, is that one Sri Manikrao Janpurkar, a member of the Land Tribunal, Bhalki who had bias against the petitioner had participated in the proceedings for determination as to who was the tenant in Sy. No. 10 measuring 7 acres 10 guntas of Ganeshpur village in Bhalki taluk.2. The submission made by Sri Gunjal, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that Sri Manikrao Janpurkar is a practicing advocate at Bhalki and that he had appeared on behalf of the father of respondent 2 in O.S No. 80 of 1959-60 on the file of the Munsiff Bhalki, in respect of the same land.3. The petitioner has produced Ext. 'C' a vacillate accepted and filed by Sri Munirka Janpurkar. The petitioner has stated in the course of his petition that he brought to the notice of the Tribunal the fact that Sri Manikrao Janpurkar had appeared for the father of the tenant in the civil proceedings and objected to the participation of Sri Manikrao Janpurkar in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1977Kant211; ILR1977KAR287; 1977(1)KarLJ50
ORDER1. This is a revision petition by the plaintiff, directed against the order made by the III Addl. First Munsiff, Bangalore, under S. 20(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.The plaintiff was once an employee in the Loka Shikshana Trust of which defendant 1 was the sole Trustee. Defendant 2 was its Secretary. The said Trust was publishing a Daily newspaper styled as ''Samyukta Karnataka'. The said publication was taken over by a Company called as 'Karnataka Patrika (P.) Ltd.', which is defendant 3. Defendant 4 is the Editor-in-chief of the newspaper and defendant 5 is its Financial Manager.2. The plaintiff complaining that he was prevented from discharging his duties after defendants 3 and 5 took over the management of the newspaper, has filed a suit for twin reliefs, viz., (i) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 or their servants, agents or any one on their behalf from interfering with the discharge of the duties by the plaintiff as the Manager and Business Manag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. This is a revision petition by defendant 1. Against him, the suit 0. S. No. 147 of 1973 based on a promissory note is pending before the Court of the Munsiff, Kollegal. The promissory note was executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 who in turn assigned the same to the plaintiff, who is none other than her brother.*(Against order of Munsiff, Kollegal, D/-26-8-1975).2. Defendant 1 has denied the consideration under the promissory note. He has stated that he executed the promissory note as a collateral security. To prove that there was no consideration there under, he is anxious to examine defendant 2. But defendant 2 has been evading to attend the Court. So, defendant I took summons to her. But that summons could not be served. Probably she avoided the process server. He then asked the Court to issue a warrant to secure her presence. That warrant also could not be executed. Thereafter, he asked the Court to issue a proclamation. But the Court refused to issue Proclamati...
Tag this Judgment!