Rajasthan Court July 2011 Judgments
Dhanraj Vs. Smt.Kavita
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner/husband has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 29th June, 2010 passed by Family Court, Kota in Criminal Misc. Case No.650/2005, whereby an application filed by respondent/ wife under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance was allowed and non-applicant/petitioner/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards maintenance to wife with effect from 1st March, 2008. 3. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act of 2005’), which was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate, Ramgunjmandi, Kota vide its order dated 15th December, 2007, therefore, respondent was not entitled for any maintenance. It is submitted that maintenance could have been granted under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 also, but since her application was dismissed, therefore, c...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Tiwari and Another Vs. Shemraj and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 7th March, 2006, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Bayana) allowed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, set-aside the ex-parte decree passed on 17th May, 1996. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner preferred a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of a lane/passage against the respondents, wherein the learned trial court framed the issues and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of plaintiff. It is revealed that on 9th April, 1996, the learned trial court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants-respondents as the defendants-respondents were not present in the court. The suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 17th May, 1996. Thereafter on 9th October, 1998, the respondents-defendants submitted an application under Order 9 Rule 13 readwith Section 151 of CPC imploring to set-aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and recalling the order dated 9th Apri...
Tag this Judgment!Girraj Dhobi at Girraj Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The matter has come up for orders on second application for suspension of sentence, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not pressing second application for suspension of sentence as well as order of conviction of the appellant passed by the trial court, in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence available against the appellant, including statement of prosecutrix, P.W. 6 Pinky; father of prosecutrix, P.W. 10 Mangi Lal; P.W. 8 Dr. Arun Sharma; P.W. 7 Dr. G.S. Vishnar; P.W. 9 Kalulal, Investigating Officer; Exhibit P-10, medical report of the prosecutrix, and his only prayer is that appeal itself may be heard finally, as the appellant has already undergone sentence of imprisonment of more than 6 years and 3 months and sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 376(1) IPC may be reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to minimum sentence of 7 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Swaroop Singh Vs. the Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 24th July, 2001, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar, set-aside the orders dated 17th August, 2000 and 18th July, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sikar. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction relating to suit property on the grounds of material alteration and non user against the respondents-defendants no. 3 and 4 as also the proforma respondents-defendants no. 5 and 6. The respondents no. 3 and 4 filed the written statement gainsaying the allegations made in the plaint. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issue: i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property and whether there is a relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2? 3. Having recorded the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kala and Others Vs. Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Challenge inthis writ petition is to the order dated 6.10.2010, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading them as a party in the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that petitioners are the daughter and sons of respondent no.3 Ram Kishan. Learned counsel further canvassed that the land in question is an ancestral property and the petitioners have got the equal share in that property. Respondent no.3 Ram Kishan sold the property to respondent no.2 Chet Ram as he was a patient of schizophrenia and did not understand the merits of the sale. Since the petitioners are the necessary party for the decision of the suit, hence they are entitled to be impleaded as a party-plaintiffs, but the learned trial court has arbitrarily dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 3. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. The matter has come for orders on second application for suspension of sentence of appellants, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellants submitted that he is not pressing this second application as well as order of conviction of appellants passed by the trial Court, in view of 'Parcha-Bayan' of prosecutrix Exhibit-P2, proved by the statements of PW22 Pradeep Kumar, Investigating Officer, PW2 Mooli Devi, mother of prosecutrix, PW14 Rodu and PW24 Sanwara, but his request is that appeal itself may be heard and decided, finally, and sentence of imprisonment of appellants awarded by the trial Court under Section 376(2)(G) IPC be reduced reasonably. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in hearing the appeal, finally, and in reducing the sentence of imprisonment of appellants in view of the fact that appellants are not challenging their order of conviction. 3. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and appeal is being dispo...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Narayan and Others Vs. Surendra Kumar and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have implored to quash and set-aside the order dated 27th January, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar decided his application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order it is noticed that the learned Additional District Judge allowed the written statement Ex.A/1 to be taken on record as additional evidence at the cost of Rs. 1000/- and dismissed rest of the prayer with regard to taking other documents on record. 3. It is revealed from the impugned order that written statement Ex.A/1 was filed by the defendant in the Court. This document was exhibited, which suggest that this document must have been filed in the Court, but the same was not available on record. The petitioner obtained the certified copy of this document on 20.2.2009 and sought leave to file the s...
Tag this Judgment!Gajendra Borana Vs. Smt. Rekha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. Petitioner-husband has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 07.01.2009 passed by the Family Court, Ajmer, whereby application filed by respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and petitioner-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month towards maintenance to her with effect from the date of order. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that respondent herself was not residing with petitioner, therefore, he filed a petition for grant of decree for conjugal rights, his petition was allowed and a decree of conjugal rights was passed in favour of petitioner, this fact clearly shows that petitioner wanted to keep his wife with him, but she herself is not coming, therefore, respondent is not entitled to receive any maintenance and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. Learned Court below has considered this aspect and by assigning cogent reasons, has com...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Singh and Another Vs. Rakesh Saini and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 18th March, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar dismissed the application filed by the defendants-petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners it is noticed that the defendants-petitioners moved the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissing the plaint, but the learned trial dismissed the application observing that the plaint could be dismissing only on the basis of averments made in the plaint. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must be sparingly exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like, but not to upset pure findings of fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should not interfere with the order of the inferior court, unless the same...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Lal Through Lrs Vs. Civil Judge and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 5th April, 2010 (Annexure-1), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kishangarh, District Ajmer passed the final decree in Civil Suit No. 44/1983 titled as Rama and Others Versus Shanker Lal & Others. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the order dated 5th April, 2010 passed by the court below is not a 'final decree' within the definition envisaged under sub-clause (2) of Section 2 of CPC. The petitioners had already filed an application imploring the court to pass a final decree, but the same has been still pending and yet not decided. Hence, the order dated 5th April, 2010, which cannot be said to be a final decree, from any stretch of imagination, deserves to be set-aside. 3. Having carefully scanned the order dated 5th April, 2010, it is found that pursuant to the preliminary decree rendered by the court below on 8.2.1994, the court, while ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »