Rajasthan Court February 1979 Judgments
Radhey Shyam Vs. Nathuram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj111
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. Radhey Shyam plaintiff has filed this revision application against the order of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh rejecting his application for admission of three documents under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Anil Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent that no revision can be entertained on the question whether an application under Order 13 Rule 2 should have been accepted or rejected. He relies upon the judgment of this court reported in Harakchand v. State of Rajas-than, 1970 Raj LW 320, where a Full Bench consisting of Bhandari, C. J. and Bhargava and Modi JJ, observed as under: '14. In this case it has been argued before us that by wrongly construing a document, the trial court held that it was admissible in evidence, while on a proper construction of document, it was inadmissible in evidence because of the provisions of the Registration Act and that the trial court thus proceeded to incorpo...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Kulshrestha Vs. the Secretary, Rajasthan State Electricity Bo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN645
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction, order or writ in the nature of certiorari and prohibition to bring up and quash the order of reversion dated August 10, 1978, passed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short the Board) in respect of the petitioner and to restrain the Board from giving effect to the impugned order. The impugned order which is Annexure 4 to the petition is in these terms:Shri R.K. Kulshrestha who is continuing against the temporary post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis is hereby reverted to the post of Asstt. Engineer with immediate effect.On reversion as Asstt. Engineer, services of Shri R.K. Kulshrestha are placed at the disposal of the Chief Engineer (Const. & Gen.), RSEB, Jaipur.By order,sd/-(Harish Nayyer)Secretary2. The case of the petitioner as set out in his petition may be briefly stated here. The petitioner joined service of the Board as a Junior Engineer on June 2, 1959. He was p...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Lal Vs. Legal Representatives of Khemraj Nathulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj179; 1979()WLN545
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This revision application comes up for orders on the application submitted by the petitioners on Dec. 19, 1977 for substituting the legal representatives of the non-petitioner No. 1/1 Nathu-lal. 2. It is necessary to recount a few facts, 3. The plaintiffs Khemraj and Vanraj instituted a suit against the petitioners and Amarchand, who is non-petitioner No. 3 in this revision, on June 16, 1966, for permanent injunction, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants were intending to dispossess them from a 'Bara' (property in suit), described in para 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, they were owners in possession of the 'Bara.' This suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 86 of 1966. On the application of the plaintiffs, an ex parte interlocutory injunction was granted. The defendants contested the suit. The ex parte interlocutory injunction was also resisted. While the aforesaid suit was pending, the plaintiffs filed another suit for possession again...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Dayal Vs. Chunnilal Devkinandan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj69
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This petition of revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. by the defendant is directed against the order dated August 1, 1978, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the defendant's application dated July 21, 1978 and consequently refused to hold that the suit had abated.2, The facts material for the decision of this petition are simple. M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan, a partnership firm registered as such under the Partnership Act, and its three partners, namely, Devkinandan, Chunnilal and Brijendra Kumar, arrayed as plaintiffs 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, sued Shambhu Dayal, the petitioner herein and three others (respondents 4, 5 and 6 herein) for recovery of Rs. 11516.86. During the pendency of the suit, Chunnilal died on June 5, 1976. His legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation. The surviving plaintiffs represented to the trial court that since they we...
Tag this Judgment!Suratram Vs. the Addl. District Development Officer, Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj186
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. This writ petition provides a typical example of attempt of an undemocratic Sarpanch to flout majority verdict on the heels of legal technicalities. 2. Before I proceed to give the facts of this case, it would be useful to mention in brief the historical concept of Panchayat institution. 3. The age old concept of 'Panch Parmeshawara' Panch is God, which was prevalent in ancient India, disappeared completely during British rule in India. The institution of Panchayat Raj or Village Panchayat has been an institution existing from times Immemorial in this country but during British rule this institution collapsed. 4. The Indian Independence of 1947 and its Constitution again revised the 'Panchayat' concept by placing it in the directive principles of State policy. The framers of the Indian Constitution, enacted Article 40 as follows:-- 'The State shall take steps to organise village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enabl...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chander Vs. Smt. Sunder Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj108; 1979()WLN61
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the District Judge, Udaipur, dated 12-9-78 whereby the order of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 10-1-78 was upheld and the defendant-petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed.2. The facts leading to the present revision petition may briefly be stated as under:The plaintiffs Arjundas and Smt. Sun deri Bai instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenantdefendant Prakash Chandra on 4-11-76 on the grounds of personal necessity, sub-letting and default. After registration of the case, summons was ordered to be issued for 10-1-77. On 10-1-77 fresh summons was ordered to be issued for 21-2-77, as the earlier summonses did not return. Summons was issued at the Kankarauli address of the defendant through court. On 21-2-77 summons returned unserved with the endorsementthat the defendant was not available at his given address and is at Udaipur. The plaintiffs submitted an ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. Kanhiyalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj200; 1979()WLN577
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment anddecree of the learned District Judge, Ajmer dated 10-4-1967 affirming the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge, Kishangarh dated 13-10-1966. 2. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the defendants in respect of a house situated in village Harmara. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants took a house on rent excepting a 'Kothari' on a monthly tenancy commencing from Sudi 1st of every month. The rent agreed was Rs. 50/- per year. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 133.30 as arrears of rent and Rs. 13.50 as mesne profits and claimed eviction. The defendants in their joint written statement took the plea inter alia that though they were tenants of the plaintiff, but on 19-4-1959, the plaintiff sold the house for Rs. 2200/- and handed over possession of the same and the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end thereafter. They further submitted that the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Radhey Shyam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Raj137; 1979()WLN85
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the Union of India under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated Oct. 27, 1978, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 22 of 1975. 2. Shri Radhey Shyam Gaur, Advocate, Bikaner (for short 'Shri Gaur), who is non-petitioner No. 1 in this revision was conducting a suit on behalf of the Union of India. On May 10, 1978, Shri Lalit Prashad, Advocate submitted an application on behalf of the Deputy General Manager, Northern Railway, dated April 25, 1978 that leave may be granted for determining the power of Shri Gaur, and that he may be permitted to conduct the proceedings in the suit on behalf of the Union of India. In reply to that application, Shri Gaur stated that he has no objection if his appointment is terminated, but he should be paid his full fee and expenses. On September 30, 1978, Shri Gaur submitted an application that the application filed for terminating his appointment should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Loombaram Vs. Ramnarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN317
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner Loombaram, by his application dated Feb. 13, 1979 has submitted that tinder the provisions of Section 112 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Ramjiwan, who had also applied to be substituted as a petitioner in the above mentioned election-petition in place of the deceased petitioner Umed Ram, should also be substituted as a petitioner on such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as this Court may deem proper. The allegation of the petitioner Loombaram is that Ramjiwan 'appears to be in hand and glove with the respondent Shri, Ramnarain' and although he was not interested in being substituted as a petitioner in place of late Shri Omedram, yet he filed an application for substitution merely in order to delay the proceedings in this election petition. The aforesaid allegation may co may riot be correct, yet the question Which requires consideration is, as to whether all the persons, who apply for...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagchand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)129
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This application under Section 482 CrPC is directed against a part of the order dated August 3, 1978 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, where by the learned Judge directed that the attachment of two plots of land which were the bone of contention between the rival parties, would remain in operation until the Magistrate to whom the case was remanded, decided as to whether or not it was a fit case for further proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. It will be seen that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction' set aside the order of attachment passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146 CrPC on the ground that such an order could be justified only if a preliminary order wider Section 145(1) CrPC has first been passed and that since no preliminary order as required by Section 145 (1) CrPC had been passed in this case, the order of attachment under Section 146 CrPC was illegal.2. The petitioner's co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »