Patna Court May 1992 Judgments
Santosh Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Sah and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-21-1992
Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The defendants-' tenants have filed the present revision application against the order dated 11-1-1988 passed by Munsif, 1st Court, Samastipur in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1987 by which he has rejected the application of the petitioners under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 29-4-1987 passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1987 on the ground that the aforesaid application was not maintainable in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. Primary question for determination in the present case is as to what is the remedy available in law to a tenant to challenge an order of eviction passed against him under Section 14(4) of the Act on the ground that the said order was passed without service of summons on him for his appearance. 3. As the point inv...
Tag this Judgment!Amerendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-15-1992
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. All these writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in these applications has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to perform his statutory duties by setting the claim of the petitioner pending before them in terms of the provisions of Bihar Public Works Account Code and Bihar Financial Rules. 3. According to the petitioner, he entered into contracts with the State and the works pursuant thereto have been completed and (found) to be satisfactory by the concerned respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, bills were prepared in respect of the works done by the petitioner, but the respondent No. 4 in stead of making a full payment has made only a part payment in respect thereof. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the petitioner in these applications is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›