Madhya Pradesh Court July 1961 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.
Chhaganlal S/O Shivchanjdi Vs. Niwasdas Goyal S/O Seth Kaluramji
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP208
1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant against whom an order of ad-interim injunction has been passed.2. A preliminary objection was raised by thelearned counsel for the respondent to the maintainability of the appeal. He argued that an order passed under Rule 3 of Order 39 Civil Procedure Code is not appealable under Clause (r) of Rule 1 of Order 43 Civil Procedure Code. I find that this question was considered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sarajuprasadsingh v. Gangaprosad, AIR 1951 Cal 446. It was observed therein by Roxburg, J., that such an argument confused the temporary and limited nature of the injunction with the question of the finality of the order itself. Whether an order of injunction is to operate only till cause is shown by the opposite party against it or it is to continue to remain in force till the disposal of the suit itself, it is nonetheless an order of temporary injunction within themeaning of Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39 Civil Procedure Code...
Kunwarlal Daryavsingh Vs. Surajmal Makhanlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP58
ORDER1. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 (father and son). The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that Tulsiram defendant No. 2 was a minor and that it was he who had taken the house on rent, and because a minor was not competent to contract, no rent was realisable. Both the courts below upheld the contention and dismissed the suit. This is now a revision by the plaintiff.2. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant that Tulsiram defendant was a minor at the time when he took the house on rent. But it is contended that on 25-10-52, (sic) defendant No. 1 (father of defendant No. 2) made the following entry in the Bahi-Khata of the plaintiff and signed it:rk- 25&1&54 ls edku fdjk;k izfrekl #-15 ekgokj ls pkywAtwuk [kkrk ikuk 30 ls yk;k [kkrk oknhA c n%ljtweyA3. From the above entry in the Khata, it is evident that Surajmal, wha...
Pooranchand Mulchand JaIn Vs. Komalchand Beniprasad Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962MP64
Dixit, C.J.1. This matter comes up before us on a reference by our learned brother Tare J. for decision on the question as to the period of limitation for an application for restoration of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. which itself has been dismissed in default.2. The petitioner Pooranchand's suit was dismissed for default in appearance under Order 9 Rule 8 C. P. C. He then filed an application under Rule 9 for restoration. This application for restoration was itself dismissed for default of appearance on 3rd September 1959. Thereupon on 30th November 1959 the petitioner made an application for setting aside the dismissal of his application for restoration. This application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground of limitation relying on Pitambar Lal v. Dodee Singh, ILR 46 All 319: (AIR 1924 All 503). In the Allahabad case it was held that an application for setting aside the dismissal in default of an application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 could itself b...
Sonibai W/O Pratapji Rajput and anr. Vs. Bhavarsingh S/O Gangaram Rajp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1963MP161
Newaskar, J. 1. These are two petitions submitted severally by the two respondents each of whom had filed cross-objection to the decree appealed against by the appellant. They contend that the appeal of the appellant had been dismissed for the appellant's default in paying paper-book charges; that prior to this order of dismissal either of the two respondents had submitted her cross-objection to the decree appealed against; that at the time when the order dismissing the appeal was passed no reference to these pending cross-objections was passed and that consequently they were still pending. The respondents seek a hearing in respect of these cross-objections.2. On behalf of the appellant two contentions are raised. Firstly it is said that the case is not covered by Order 41 Rule 22(4), Code of Civil Procedure since the dismissal In this case cannot be said to be dismissal for default. Secondly, it is urged that it was incumbent upon the respondents to seek a hearing in respect of their ...
In Re: Lokman RamdIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ657
P.R. Sharma, J.1. The appellants named above were convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge Bhind of offences under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. They have preferred this appeal (through counsel) against their conviction and sentence.2. On the 6th of December, 1956 a dacoity was committed by 20/25 persons at village Katchpura - a bulk of the population of which consists of persons belonging to the Gujar community. After almost all the houses of the village had been looted the dacoits left the village shortly after dusk.3. The first information report about this incident was lodged by Pw. 1 - Madhoaingh at police station Ater on 7.12.1956 at 12 noon. Out of the present appellants the names of Kanhai and Lukka were mentioned in the report as also the fact that the dacoity in question had been committed by the members of Rupa's gang. None of the present appellants could be arrested by the police for several years after the incident. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›