Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1978(11)WLN365
S.K.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two revision petitions by the defendant directed against the order of the Munsif City Jodhpur dated 20-1-1978 by which he has ordered that the pleas taken in paras Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional written statement put in by the defendant in answer to the amended plaint be ignored The question involved in both the revisions is common. I, therefore, propose to decide them by a common judgment.2. I may state the facts leading to S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 92 of 1978. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-petitioner in the court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur, on May 18, 1976 It was stated in para 8 of the plaint that the defendant petitioner had paid rent upto Posh Sudi Poonam, Samvat 2024. The suit was brought for the recovery of the rent and damages for use and occupation in respect of 36 months. It was also stated that if the defendant petitioner wants to take benefit of the provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC334
ORDER1. Defendants 14 to 16 in O.S. No, 710 of 1996, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Erode, are the revision petitioners.2. First respondent herein filed the suit for partition claiming 8/5.6 shares and also for putting her in exclusive possession of the same, she also prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 14 to 16, their men and agents from demolishing the suit property, and for directing the defendants to pay costs of the suit.3. In the body of plaint, it is alleged that plaintiff and first defendant are daughters of one Gurunatha Mudaliar, who died 35 years ago. Apart from plaintiff and first defendant, defendant 8 to 10. One Mariappan and one Duraisami are also the children of Gurunatha Mudaliar. Mariappan died and his widow is 2nd defendant, and defendants 3 to 7 are their children. The legal heirs of Duraisami are defendants 11 and 12. It is alleged that the property is the self-acquisition of plaintiff's father. On the date of death of Guru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1999)3MLJ558
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Judgment-debtor in C.S.No. 770 of 1988 on the file of this Court is the revision petitioner.2. The property was sold on 2.12.1998 and the present application has been filed by petitioner to direct resale of property on the ground that the sale was conducted not in accordance with law and there are so many irregularities. It is mentioned that the sale was conducted on 2.12.1998 and the sale was also confirmed and auction purchaser also made application for getting delivery of the property by filing E.P.No. 39 of 1998. It is at that time, present application was filed to have the resale of property and postpone delivery by two weeks.3. The same was seriously opposed by auction purchaser. In his objection, the maintainability of the petition itself was challenged on the ground that decree-holder was not made as party. It is further stated that various contentions in the petition are not true and he has deposited the entire amount within the time stipulated under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1975Cal135
K.J. Sen Gupta, J. 1. This application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment end order dated 4-12-1973 passed by this Court in F. M. A. No. 624 of 1968, affirming the order passed in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1968. by Sri M. M. Haldar, Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas. 2. In order to appreciate the point at issue, the following facts need be stated:-- That the petitioner is the judgment-debtor No. 2 in the execution case. His father Raja Abhoy Narayan Deb of Assam died in 1941. He. along with other properties left the premises No. 117-A, Rash Behari Avenue, situated on an area of about 1 bigha 6 cottah. It is a three storied building comprising 32 spacious rooms with two out houses. That on or about 15-9-1949, the petitioner and others mortgaged their 2/3 share in the said property to raise a loan of Rs. 27,000/-. The mortgagors were:-- (a) the present petitioner (b) Kumar Surjyendra Narayan Deb (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)1CALLT385(HC)
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. Four revisional applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been heard together. The prayers are the same and facts and question of law involved are exactly the same. As such they have been dealt with analogously and shall be governed by the present judgment. They arise out of 4(four) complaints which have been investigated by the C.B.I, being proceeding No. RC/12/EOW/86, RC/13/EOW/86, RC/14/EOW/86 and RC/15/EOW/86 all dt. 17.12.86 under section 5(1)(d) and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 120B/420/468/471 IPC. 2. The complaints were made by the Deputy General Manager (Advances) of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. a private Bank controlled by the family of late A.M.M.S. Ganesha Nadar. The petitioner was an employee of the said Bank from 1983 to the middle part of 1985 when he resigned from the services following difference with higher officials and consequent harassment. It is the case of petitioner that in the body of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)3CALLT211(HC),2008(3)CHN194
Soumitra Pal, J.1. This writ petition was filed on 9th October, 2007 challenging the order dated 7th September, 2007 passed under Section 7(1) and Section 7(3) as also under Section 19(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('SAFEMA' for short). During its pendency, on 25th March, 2008, the wife of the petitioner filed an application being G.A. No. 929 of 2008 for addition of party and also challenging the notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA dated 3rd March, 2008. Subsequently, on 16th April, 2008, the writ petitioner filed an application being G.A. No. 1246 of 2008 for amendment of the writ petition for incorporating statements, and grounds challenging the order of detention dated 22nd August, 1995 passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA') and for consequential reliefs.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was served with a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. 1. Petitioner filed M.C.No.106 of 2009 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act"). While so, petitioner filed Ext.P3, petition for amendment to incorporate reliefs under Sec.19 of the Act and for awarding monthly allowance to her by way of maintenance. That petition was opposed by the respondents on various grounds including that there is no provision for amendment of the petition provided under the Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and that petition for amendment is only a counter blast for a prosecution that second respondent, mother-in-law of petitioner has launched against petitioner for forging her certificates. Learned Magistrate was not inclined to allow the prayer of petitioner and dismissed the petition as per Ext.P3, order dated December 13, 2010. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
C.R. No.1862 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1862 of 2001 Date of Decision.04.02.2013 Tirath Ram Sharma s/o late Sh. Durga Dass .....Petitioner Versus M/s Chandigarh Sales Corporation through their sole proprietor and another .......Respondents Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Bindlish, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or No.?. No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. No -.- K. KANNAN J.1. This order must be taken as in continuation of order passed on 06.10.2012. On that day, after hearing the arguments, I directed evidence to be collected for testing the averments made in the affidavit relating to certain subsequent events. The petition for eviction on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CR No.3834 o1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3834 of 2013 Date of Decision:30.07.2013 Sanjay ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushila Devi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?. 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.HaRs.Kinra, Advocate, for the respondent. **** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.(Oral) Instant revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure P-3) whereby application moved by the petitioner for amendment of petition has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Kumar Parveen 2013.08.01 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.3834 o2. record. Learned counsel for the parties agree that e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 9th August, 2012 passed below Exhibit-137 in Regular Civil Suit No. 310 of 2000 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akole, District Ahmednagar. 3. The back ground facts as disclosed in the petition are as under:- The petitioners herein, are the original plaintiffs and the respondents herein, are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 310 of 2000. The said suit is filed for declaration and injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the said suit, the petitioners herein, filed application for amendment in the plaint, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the averments in the plaint and submitted that, the suit property was earlier owned by one Ashok Narayan Shete, and father of petitioner NO.1A Dhondiba Anand Balsaraf was in...
Tag this Judgment!