Patna Court June 2005 Judgments
Bir Vijai Singh Vs. Rama Shankar Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 522 of 2002, which was filed by him for declaration that the sale deed dated 22.6.2002 was forged, fabricated and not enforceable and also for restraining the defendants from transferring the properties mentioned in Schedule-KHA of the suit and for other ancillary reliefs.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 2.12.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-l, Arrah allowed the petition of the intervenor filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) and added opposite party No. 1 as intervenor-defendant.4. Admittedly opposite party No. 1 (intervenor) has no right, title or possession over the suit land and his only claim is that he is a pre-emptor and had filed Ceiling Case Nos. 22/2002 and 23/2002 under the provisions of Section 16 (3) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Balkeshwari Devi and ors. Vs. Laxmi Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 38 of 2000, which was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties No. 1 to 3 for partition of their land detailed in the Schedule of the plaint (Annexure-2).3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 5.10.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge II, Lakhisarai dismissed their petition under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity for stay of that suit till, the disposal of the previously instituted Title Suit No. 42 of 2000, which was filed by the petitioners.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they had filed Title Suit No. 42/2000 on 22.6.2000 in the Court of the learned Munsif II, Begusarai for declaration of their 2/3rd share in the suit properties detailed in the Schedule of the plaint of that suit (Annexure-3) and also for declaration that the judgment and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
I.P. Singh, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 17.2.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Town P.S. Case No. 278 of 2004 by which he had rejected the bail petition filed under Section 167(2) of the Code by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 14.3.2005 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in B.A. No. 352 of 2005 by which he had rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.2.2005.2. From the facts of this case it appears that the informant Surendra Poddar gave a written information to the Officer Incharge, Town Police Station, Begusarai on 12.9.2004 stating therein that on 11.9.2004 at 6 p.m. his daughter Suchitra Kumari aged about 17 years alongwith another girl Kirtika Kiran aged about 16 years had ...
Tag this Judgment!Saim Ansari Vs. Jainul Ansari
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is defendant No. 1 in title Suit No. 162/2002, which was filed by the opposite party 1st set for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and for other ancillary reliefs.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21-2-2005 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Munsif Sadar, Sitamarhi rejected his petition dated 4-2-2005 for accepting the written statement filed by him on that very date.4. The suit was filed in the year 2002 and when the defendants did not appear even after regular process, substituted service was ordered and publication was made in the Gazette. It transpires that even thereafter the defendants did not appear, the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing by order dated 4-8-2003. It was much thereafter that defendant No. 1 appeared in the suit on 10.6.2004 and filed a petition for recall of the aforesaid order dated 4.8.2003. The said petition was allowed by the learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Poddar and ors. Vs. Shiv NaraIn Sao and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are plaintiffs-appellants, who are aggrieved by order dated 18.1.2005 passed in Title Appeal No. 3/1985, by which the learned Additional District Judge-Ill Naugachhia rejected the petitioners' petition for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No. 11/1978.3. The said title suit was filed by the petitioners challenging the entries in the Record of Rights and for declaration that they were entitled to get entered their names in the Records of Rights in respect of the suit land. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1984, whereafter the plaintiffs-petitioners filed Title Appeal No. 3/1985, which is pending before the learned Addl. District Judge-III, Naugachhia.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court gave its finding in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners holding that since the recent survey entry was not prepared in accordance with the deed of title of t...
Tag this Judgment!Hardeo Singh Vs. Ramavati Devi
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is defendant-applicant-appellant of Title Suit No. 34 of 1986 which was filed by the sole opposite party for declaration that the deed of gift executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant (petitioner) was forged, void and fraudulent.3. It transpires that the defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit on 17.11.1990, but thereafter left pairvi of the case and by order dated 14.7.1992 the suit was fixed for ex-pane hearing and the same was decreed ex-parte on 19.8.1992. Thereafter also much time lapsed and the defendant-petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 1 of 1994 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code') for the sake of brevity) for setting aside the ex-parte decree against the defendant. The said Misc. Case was dismissed on 17.9.1998 by the learned trial Court on the grounds that the case was hit by the law of limitation and that the ex-parte order passed un...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Mohan Tripathi Vs. the Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition by a retired employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') is directed against the resolution bearing Memo No. 2106, dated 4.9.2000 (Annexure-9), passed by the Board, whereby the petitioner's pension has been reduced by 10 per cent.2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Board and was posted as an Electrical Executive Engineer Electric Supply Division, Dehri-on-Sone, district Rohtas, during the period 26.1.1992 to August 1995. By letter dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure-2/1), the Board had served a show cause notice on the petitioner to explain as to why the request of Rohtas Rerolling Mills, Dehri-on-Sone, to enhance its load from 187 KVA to 235 KVA was not granted indicating inaction and negligence. The petitioner did not reply to the same and the Board sent its second letter dated 26.2.1997 (Annexure-2), enclosing thereto copy o,f...
Tag this Judgment!Mridula Kumari Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Vivekanand Madhya Vidyalaya, Mithapur, Patna, a minority aided school, duly recognised by the respondents. The appointment came to be made in pursuance of an advertisement published in the year 1977 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee by an order dated 18-5-1978 issued by the Managing Committee in consequence thereof. The appointment of the petitioner was forwarded for approval to the District Superintendent of Education who vide his communication dated 29-8-1989 accorded approval to the appointment recording that the petitioner held a Matric Handicraft trained qualification. The petitioner then sought payment of salary and the pay statement of the petitioner was then prepared and forwarded to the Director Primary Education for approval sometime in the year 1994. The matter then remained pending at this stage des...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingh Rai and ors. Vs. Durgawati Devi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners are plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 151/1990 which was filed by them for partition of their shares in the suit property and also for declaration that the deeds executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant Nos. 41 to 41 (Gaa) dated 14.8.1995, 12.8.1996, 25.5.1995, 3.2.1997 and 29.5.1997 were void, ab-initio and also that the sale deed dated 22.2.1995 executed by Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 41 was forged and for injunction etc.3. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 6.3.2002 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Subordinate Judge IX, Gopalganj, rejected their petition for amendment of the plaint.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were two mistakes in the plaint regarding dates only as in Paragraph-14 (Gaa) the date of the deed was mentioned as 8.8.1996, although, it should have been 12.8.1996. He further submits that in relief No. (i) the date of deed is wro...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Mehta and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing Clause-6 of resolution of the State Government in the department of Agriculture dated 11.7.2003 (Annexure 1), whereby the Routine Clerk, Assistant, Personal Assistant and Section Officer working in Rajendra Agricultural University have not been treated at par with the employees of the State Government in the Secretariat for the purpose of grant of scale of pay.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass.Petitioners are Routine Clerk, Assistant, Personal Assistant and Section Officer working in the Rajendra Agricultural University, hereinafter referred to as the University. The University was established by an Act of the Legislature of the State, namely, Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971. At the time of establishment of the University the ministerial staff like Routine Clerk, Assistant, Personal Assistant and Section Officer employed by the State Government and posted at Secretariat, were sent on deputation. Hen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »