Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H367
ORDER1. These are six applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of this Bench disposing of six appeals filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appeals were connected and were disposed of by one judgment. 2. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Shamair Chand on the score of limitation. He contends that under Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act an applicant for leave to appeal is entitled to exclude the time taken in obtaining a copy of the decree only. He is not entitled to any concession on account of the time spent in obtaining a copy of the judgment. It is conceded by Mr. Daya Krishan Mahajan that the applications are barred by time if the time taken in obtaining the copy of the judgment is not to be excluded. The judgment sought to be appealed against was pronounced on 27-7-1951. The application for a copy of the decree was made on 12-10-1951 and was ready on 26-10-1951. The present application was not put in until 5-12-1951. The applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H368
Kapur, J. 1. This is an appeal brought by the Union of India against an order passed under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act refusing to stay the suit which .was brought by the plaintiff Din Dayal Kapur for the recovery of Rs. 14,420/- on the 12th June 1950. 2. On the 25th October 1950, the Government Pleader on behalf of the Union made an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings alleging that the Union was always ready and willing to do everything necessary for the proper conduct of arbitration. To this the plaintiff took objection and stated in his reply dated the 15th November 1950 that the arbitration clause was void for uncertainty, that the claims of the plaintiff were outside the arbitration clause, that the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer were guilty of fraud inasmuch as they altered the terms of the contract and that the Union had repudiated the contract. 3. On the 5th July 1943, the plaintiff hadsubmitted a tender w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H350
Khosla, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, making an award a rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The question raised in appeal before me is that the application upon which the award was made a rule of the Court was barred by time and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 2. The facts briefly are that parties to this litigation entered into an agreement to refer the dispute between them to the arbitration of Girdhari Lal arbitrator on 20-1-43. On the next day, Girdhari Lal made the award which was signed by both parties and subsequently registered. No further action appears to have been taken by either party but on 23-6-44 i. e., more than a year later Radha Kishan, one of the parties, filed a suit for a declaration that the property which was the subject-matter of the award should not be dealt with by Ganga Ram who is the present appellant before me. This suit was decreed but an appeal was allowed by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H389
ORDER1. Firm Sahib Dayal-Bakshi Ram of Amritsar, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, applies under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of writs of 'certiorari', prohibition and 'mandamus'. 2. Briefly summarised the facts giving rise to these proceedings are these. On the 24th of June 1948, the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, decreed with costs the suit of the applicant against Messrs. Ghulam Mustafa-Bahal-ud-Din for rupees l,585/5/- and future interest. On the 29th of December, 1948, the applicant applied to the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Amritsar, hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1, for the registration of the claim of the applicant for rupees 1,814/10/-, against Messrs. Ghulam Mustafa-Bahal-ud-Din. In January, 1949, the applicant put in a claim for rupees 1,900/- on the basis of debt outstanding against Moosa Ji Ghulam Mohammad Malik in the books of the applicant. 3. On receipt of the claims mentioned in the preceding paragraph respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H68
Harnam Singh, J.1. On 10-3-1948, Major Ramchandra applied under Section 10, Divorce Act, 1869,for dissolution of his marriage with Mrs Saras- wati. Ramchandra on, the ground that Mrs. Saraswati Ramchandra was living in adultery with Mr. L. C. Acharaya alias father co-respondent. In the application, a sum of rupees 5,000/- was claimed as damages from. the corespondent on the ground of his, having committed adultery with Mrs.. Saraswati Ramchandra. (2) Mrs. Saraswati Ramchandra and Mr. Pather resisted the application for divorce and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were fixed on 20th April 1948:1. Has the respondent been guilty of adultery with the co-respondent as alleged in the petition? 2. If issue 1 is. found in favour of the petitioner, did the petitioner, in any manner, condone his wife's adultery? 3. Has there been any ill treatment with the respondent by. the petitioner, and if so, did such ill treatment, in any manner, lead to the adultery on the part of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H417
Kapur, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals--E. F. A. No. 116 of 1950 and E. F. A. No. 55 of 1951. They arise out of execution proceedings, one in regard to a decree dated the 23rd July, 1937, for a sum of Rs. 7697/- and the other out of a decree dated the 6th August, 1937, for a sum of Rs. 2354/-. The last execution in both these decrees was taken out in August, 1948. An objection having been taken that the judgment-debtors were 'debtors' as defined in Section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, it was held that the period of limitation for the execution of these decrees was reduced from 12 years as given in section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code to 6 years as provided for by the Punjab Debtors' Protection Act.2. In appeal Mr. Hem Raj Mahajan has submitted in the first instance that as the Punjab Alienation of Land Act has been declared to be void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, therefore he can take advantage of the period of 12 years as provided f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H94
Kapur, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals which have been brought by the Small Town Committee, Budhlada, against Firm Bhuria Mal-Parmeshwari Das in the one case and Swami Ram in the other, in both of which the point in controversy is the same.2. In 1934 sanction was obtained by Firm Bhuria Mal-Parmeshri Das and by Sawani Ram for the building of 'chabutras' over a public drain in a public street. This sanction was subject to a condition that no structure above the 'chabutras' would be constructed and there would be no permanent interference with the public street, whatever that may mean. In December 1934 a report was made to the Small Town Committee that 'chhappars' had been constructed both by Firm Bhuria MakParmeshri Das and by Sawani Ram. In March 1935 there was a resolution to the effect that either the 'chhappars' should be removed or these persons should pay penalties. I am informed that penalties were paid though counsel for the Com-mittee does not accept this positio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H97
Harnam Singh, J.1. In order to appreciate the point of law arising, in Regular Second Appeal No. 807 of 1947 the facts of the case may be set out in some detail.2. On 25-7-1942, Paras Ram, defendant No. 3, sold one half of the land comprised in Khewat No. 102 situate in village Mihra, Tehsil Thanesar, district Kamal, to Arjan Singh and Sahib Ditta defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 2,600/-. That sale was attested by the Revenue Officer in the register of mutations on 14-2-1944. On 25-7-1942, Raj Ram, was an owner of the estate and the vendees became owners of the estate on 2-3-1944. On the 22-3-1944, Paras Ram defendant No. 3 sold one half of the land comprised in khewat No. 102 to Raja, Eabu, Munshi, Mangal, Des Raj , and Ram Singh, sons of Kalu Ram, for Rs. 8,501/-. By this sale, Raja Ram became a co-sharer in khewat No. 102.3. On 22-8-1944, Raja Ram instituted Civil Suit No. 195 of 1944 claiming a right of pre-emption superior to that of the vendees on two grounds, namely, (I) that on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H51
1. I am of the opinion that the learned District Judge was in error in passing an order for delivery of possession of the rebuilt building to the tenant who was in possession before the property was rebuilt.2. Nanki was the original landlord and she applied for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that she wanted the building for rebuilding, and this matter falls within Section 13(3) (a) (iii), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. A compromise was entered into on 28th November 1949 by which the tenant agreed to vacate the shop on the condition that he 'will be entitled to get it on fair rent from the landlord after she had rebuilt. The shop was rebuilt and the tenant applied for execution of the decree and prayed for possession being given to him.3. The application for restoration of possession was dismissed by Mr. Augustine, Subordinate Judge, on 24th April 1951. On appeal being taken to the District Judge, he held that this decree was executable as a decree of Court, and, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H296
Khosla, J. 1. The sole point for decision in this appeal is whether leave to defend a suit for the recovery of money based on a negotiable instrument should be allowed under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, Civil P. C.2. The plaintiff Habib Ahmed brought a suit against the Jwala Bank Ltd., Agra, the Jwala Bank Ltd., Jhansi, and Haji Mohd. Zakria for the recovery of Rs. 80,309/- on the basis of two demand drafts. These drafts were delivered by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3 Mohd. Zakria and were endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. The drafts were presented and dishonoured. The plaintiff then brought the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 80,000/- representing the two drafts and Rs. 309/- representing the interest accruing up to the date of the suit. The suit was brought under Order XXXVII, rule 2, and the question arose whether the defendants should be allowed to defend the suit under rule 3. In the written statements put in by the defendants five distinct pleas were raised.The defendants' ...
Tag this Judgment!