Rajasthan Court May 2011 Judgments
Rafiq @ Kallia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of CrPC is found to have been filed by the petitioner on 13th September, 2005 impugning the order dated 17th September, 2004, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa dismissed the protest petition and allowed the Final Report given in FIR No. 142/2004 by the police and further the order dated 23rd July, 2005, whereby the Sessions Judge, Dausa affirmed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition. 2. Having perused the order-sheets recorded by this Court from to time to time, it is found that earlier Shri Rizwan Ahmed Advocate was appearing for the petitioner in the year 2008, but thereafter none appeared for the petitioner. Today also none is present in the court. 3. Having carefully perused the impugned orders, it is noticed that one FIR no. 142/2004 came to be registered at Police Station, Dausa for the offences under Section 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. The police, after completion ...
Tag this Judgment!Nandkishore Sharma Vs. Mishri Lal and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28th April, 2011 rendered by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alwar, whereby the review application filed by the petitioner-objector under Order 47 Rule 1 readwith Section 114 of CPC has been rejected and the order dated 25.11.2010, whereby the objection petition filed by the objector under Order 21 Rule 35 readwith Section 97 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. At the very outset it is pertinent to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only in the event when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and they result in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that these powers should not be usually exercised to interfere with the pure findings of fact of the courts below. 3. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the objector and the judgment debtor are the...
Tag this Judgment!Ranveer Singh and Another Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 28th May, 2009, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3 Ajmer Camp Kishangarh, dismissed the application filed by the defendants-petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is noticed that earlier on 21.9.2007, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed by the petitioners-defendants raising objection with regard to jurisdiction of the court, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 30.5.2008. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner again moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC raising the same objection, which was found by the learned trial court to have been moved with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit and dismissed the same. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution mus...
Tag this Judgment!Chet Mal Vs. Civil Judge (S D ) and ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners has implored to set-aside and quash the order dated 11th May, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order dated 11th May, 2011, it is noticed that a suit for eviction came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant, wherein the petitioner-defendant had already filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC imploring to amend the written statement mentioning therein that it was not clear from the pleadings of the plaintiff as to under which provisions of law, the suit had been filed for eviction of the shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Hukam Chand and Others Vs. Satya NaraIn and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders dated 18th September, 2008 rendered by District Judge, Tonk, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders dated 25th July, 2008 rendered by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Niwai, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 2. At the very outset it is pertinent to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only in the event when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and they result in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that these powers should not be usually exercised to interfere with the pure findings of fact of the courts below. 3. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that since the construction was going-on over the land of the respondent-defendant, how the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rajendra Trading Co. and ors. Vs. Civil Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Trial Judge dt.15.04.2011 whereby request made by the petitioner-defendant to mark photographs and CD as exhibit produced by DW4 was rejected on the premise that what has been contended and deposed through photographs and CD was at the best in the knowledge of DW1 tenant or his son but none of them produced at the time of their statements being recorded and as regards DW4 who was produced from judicial custody it was neither in his knowledge nor in his possession as such he could not have been permitted to produce photographs and CD and it could not have been marked as exhibits. 2. The non-petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on various grounds including non-user of rented premises provided u/S.13(1)(j) of the Rent Control Act wherein it has to be proved that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out for a period of six months immediate...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. This order governs the disposal of the second bail application filed under Section 439 of CrPC by Mr. Madhav Mitra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Jain pertaining to FIR No. 298/2010 registered by Anti Corruption Department in the offence under Sections 13(i)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act readwith Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that he had been falsely embroiled in the instant case. He is alleged to have issued two cross country certificates in favour of the trainees, who, in-fact, had not carried out any flight, but the fact is that he was not required to sign on any such certificate nor any local flight by any flying club or training institute was required to be recorded in the register. Learned counsel also canvassed that the police had exhibited a detailed chart along-with the police report and in the last column whereof it was required to be recorded as to whether any flight was carried out...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi Vs. Nagar Nigam, Kota and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 2. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of disputed piece of land i.e. Chabutara measuring 8 feet X 6 feet, which was dismissed by trial court after close scrutiny of evidence and assigning cogent reasons, while deciding relevant issues against plaintiff. First appellate court has affirmed the finding of trial court, while dismissing first appeal of plaintiff. Now, plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and examined the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below and I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal so as to entertain it. 4. Controversial issues involved in the present case are relating to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in sec...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. D.J. Pali (Raj.) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Though the matter is placed for consideration of the application (IA No.15241/2009) moved as back as on 04.11.2009 for early listing but then, it is noticed that not only the application has been rendered redundant but even the petition itself has been rendered infructuous. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.09.2007 whereby the learned District Judge, Pali proceeded to dismiss an Election Petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 questioning the elections as held on 20.08.2005 for ward No.25 in the Municipal Board Sojat City, District Pali. It is not in dispute that the term of the Office under the said election is already over.2. Thus the matter herein can only be considered having academic connotations but no longer for any substantive relief for either of the parties.3. In the given set of facts and circumstances, there appears no reason to continue with this writ petition any further and it appears appro...
Tag this Judgment!Nangu Vs. Chhanga and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 2. Appellant's suit for declaration in respect of disputed property was dismissed by trial court. Thereafter, appeal preferred by plaintiff was also dismissed. Now, second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and examined the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below and I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal so as to entertain it. 4. Controversial issues involved in the present case are relating to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below, which cannot be interferred with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 5. A three-Judges-Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholaram vs. Ameerchand- (1981) 2 SCC 414, considered the effect of amendment made in Section 100 of the CPC in 1976, and held as under: “......The High Court, however, seems to have ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »