Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj223
Bhandari, J. 1. This Revision Application has been referred bya Single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench for decision as in his opinion there were important points of law involved in this case.2. Sardarmal, Maganlal and Rajmal, all residents of Agra filed a suit for the recovery otRs. 9,500/-/- against Gaja Nand alleging that the three plaintiffs carried on in partnership the businessof Hazarilal Ganeshilal. The defendant carried on business at Sambhar, which at the time of the tilingof the suit formed part of the States of Jaipur and Jodhpur. The plaintiffs claimed that a sum of Rs. 9,500/-/- was payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs in respect of the silver transactions detailed in the plaint. The suit was filed on the 23rd of August, 1948, and it may be mentioned that at that time the plaintiffs could not sue the defendant in the name of the Firm as the Firm was situated outside the Sambhar Shamlat Area where the provisions of the Indian Civil Procedure Code as such did n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj106
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the appellate order dated 9th July, 1958 of the District Judge, Jaipur-District, Jaipur returning the appellants' plaint for presentation to the proper Court.2. The relevant facts are these:The plaintiff Seth Gulab Chand, now dead and represented by his heirs and legal representatives Kanhaiyalal and Ramdas instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur for the recovery of Rs. 2,644-12-6. The plaintiff's case was that he was a tenant of rooms Nos. 26 and 28 on the second storey of a building on Mumba Devi-Road, Bombay belonging to the estate of Laxmi Narain Gamedali and was liable to pay Rs. 35/-per month as rent and Rs. 6-5-0 as municipal tax every half year. According to the plaintiff, sometime in the samvat year 2001 Chhiganlal on behalf of the joint family firm, now represented by Kantilal and Kusumchand, took the said room from the plaintiff as a licensee and agreed to pay in addition to the rent an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj209
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision application against a decree of Munsif, Sirohi, dismissing his suit on the special oath of the defendant which was taken by him on the offer of the pleader of the plaintiff. This offer was made without taking instructions from the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 513/4/-, Oral and documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the plaintiff in support of his case. The defence was a denial of all the allegations made in the plaint.The defendant did not, however, examine any witness to rebut the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf o the plaintiff. A date was fixed for arguments in the suit. On that date the pleader of the plaintiff made an offer to be bound by the oath of Shri Parasnathji to be taken by the defendant. The defendant accepted the offer and took the oath. On this oath the suit was dismissed. Against this decree the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, who he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj83
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular first appeal by the defendant Nathulal against the judgment of the Sub Judge First Class, Beawar, dated the 25th of August, 1954 in a suit for money among other reliefs.2-4. (His Lordship after stating the facts of the case and summarising the findings of the lower court stated as follows:) The only question, which has been seriously argued before me in this appeal, is that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, and it was contended in this connection that the trial court had fallen into error In applying Article 97 of the Indian Limitation Act, while the correct Article, according to the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, was Article 62.5. Having heard learned counsel at some length, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the plea of limitation has no force. Article 97 reads as follows:Descriptionof suitPeriodof LimitationTimefrom which period begins to run.For moneypaid under an existing consid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj233
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is an appeal by Hiranand the petitioner in the original court against the order of the Civil Judge, Ajmer (Tribunal under the Displaced Persons Debts Adjustment Act -- hereinafter referred as the Act) dismissing the appellant's application under Section 10 of the Act. 2. The appellant put an application against the two respondents -- (i) The Azad Hind Refugee Co-operative Stores Ltd. having its registered office at Plaza Road, Ajmer and (ii) Hasmat Rai Secretary of the Society, for the recovery of Rs. 820/-. The claim was made on the following allegations: 3. The appellant is a displaced person from Sind. The respondent No. 1 is a co-operative society formed by the refugees for doing business for the benefit of the displaced persons. The respondent No. 2 -- Hasmat Rai is also a displaced person from Sind. The appellant became a member of the society in the end of the year 1949 and deposited Rs. 125/- as the share money. He further alleges to have made two dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj107
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This second appeal by the judgment-debtors has been directed against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge, Sojat dated 20-7-1959, dismissing the appellants' appeal and maintaining the dismissal of their objections.2. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellants for an amount of Rs. 1,339-8-0 with costs and future interest on 30th November, 1942. An application for execution was presented on 18-2-1948 admittedly within the period of limitation then in force in Marwar. The execution application had a chequered career and did not yield any result for a number of years. It was dismissed in default on 6-2-1956 in the absence of the decree-holder and his Advocate and in the presence of the Advocate for the judgment-debtor Bhikamchand. The decree-holder put an application on 9-2-1956, for restoration of application for execution. After notice to the respondent-judgment-debtor Bhikamchand the application was restored on 26-4-1956. Subsequently in the execut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1962)ILLJ607Raj
Bhargava, J.1. This is a revision by Sohanlal against his conviction under Section 21(1) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act 43 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) by the City Magistrate, Jodhpur. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500, in default to simple imprisonment for three months. His appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, failed. He has now come in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 26 December 1958, the factoryknown as R.J. Engineering Company and Iron Re-Rolling Mills, Jodhpur, was inspected by B. Kumar, Inspector of Factories and amongst other defects he found that (a) the flywheel and belts of the engine, room were not securely fenced; and(b) the belts of the lathe In the workshop were not securely fenced.As It amounted to a contravention of the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Act, the petitioner was informed of this and was directed to remove them. Petitioner sent a reply Stating that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj3
Bhandari, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by which he acquitted Shiv Singh respondent of a charge under Section 302, I. P. C. 2. The prosecution case is that the respondent Shivsingh murdered his own son Mohan in the early hours of the morning on the 24th of February 19S7. The motive for the murder is saidto be that the deceased did not comply with the wishes of his father in making a compromise with his maternal grand-mother Mst. Shivi and in spite of the strong objection on his behalf, he entered into a compromise with her on the 20th, of February, 1957. The litigation was about some immoveable property and under the terms of the compromise, it was partly held to be of Mohan and partly of Mst. Shivi. The accused tried to persuade Mohan to go back on the compromise. To this the deceased did not agree. The accused thereupon threatened to skill him and made up his mind to do so and with that end in view, he p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj109
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a revision application against an order of the Civil Judge Banswara dated 21-11-55 dismissing a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in which a preliminary decree had been passed on the application of the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 (i) C.P.C. and against his subsequent order dated 18-6-56 refusing to review his earlier order.2. The facts which have given rise to this application are these. Chiranji Lal respondent No. 1 instituted a suit tor dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the four applicants Mathuralal, Nanalal, Manaklal and Babulal and the remaining three respondents Maganlal, Karulal and Sujanmal on 28-1-53 in the court of the Civil Judge Banswara. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 16-8-54. Only Maganlal defendant appealed against this decree. The appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 18-4-55. Maganial filed a second appeal in the High Court which was withdrawn by him on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj122
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Pratapgarh, dated 1-12-1959. 2. The election petition in this case under Section 80 o the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. XLIII of 1951 -- hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed on 23-4-1957 by the appellant Inder Lall, an elector in the Chittorgarh Constituency praying that the election of the respondent Shri Lal Singh to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly should be annulled and declared void on account of illegal and corrupt practices which vitiated the election. The elections in the various constituencies took place in February and March, 1957. There appear to have been three contesting candidates at the election. Shri Lal Singh, the first respondent, who was the successful candidate, secured 7372 votes; the second respondent Shri Lakshman Singh, the Maharasal Dungarpur, secured 7261 votes, while the third respondent Shri Chhoga Lal only 569 votes. The result of the election...
Tag this Judgment!