Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.219/2013 Kashi Ram & ORS.versus Lekh Ram & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 24th July, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.R.S.Choudhary, for the appellants. Mr.Suresh Shrimali, for the respondents. ---- BY THE COURT: This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division).Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh was upheld. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellants- plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 10.08.1990 on 14.08.2003 with the averments that defendant Lekh Ram for fulfilling family requirements required money and, therefore, after receiving a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash from the plaintiffs' father/hu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Abdul Aziz Gauri vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1231/2014 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against the order dated 23.5.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1231/2012. Date of Judgement :27. 10.2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR. Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenu Purohit,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.L. Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rishabh Tayal and Mr. K.L. Vishnoi, for the respondents. BY THE COURT:(Per Hon'ble Ms. Jaishree Thakur,J.) 1. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 23.5.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1231/2012 dismissing the writ petition filed seeking to quash an order dated 19.1.2012 granting sanction to prosecute the appellant-petitioner herein.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: (1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.842/2009 Ram Kumar Vs. Mangal Chand & Ors. (2) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.767/2012 Ram Kumar Vs. Prabhudayal & Ors. Date of Judgment ::28. h November, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. Moti Singh ) Mr. B.R. Chahar ) Mr. R.S. Choudhary), for the appellant. Mr. L.D. Khatri ) Mr. T.R.S. Sodha ) for the respondent-Insurance Company Mr. G.J.Gupta, for the respondent-claimants. ---- BY THE COURT: These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ('the Act') filed by the appellant-owner are directed against the judgment and award dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation awarded, however, directed the Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation awarded and then recover the same from the appellant-owner. The brief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: (1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.842/2009 Ram Kumar Vs. Mangal Chand & Ors. (2) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.767/2012 Ram Kumar Vs. Prabhudayal & Ors. Date of Judgment ::28. h November, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. Moti Singh ) Mr. B.R. Chahar ) Mr. R.S. Choudhary), for the appellant. Mr. L.D. Khatri ) Mr. T.R.S. Sodha ) for the respondent-Insurance Company Mr. G.J.Gupta, for the respondent-claimants. ---- BY THE COURT: These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ('the Act') filed by the appellant-owner are directed against the judgment and award dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation awarded, however, directed the Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation awarded and then recover the same from the appellant-owner. The brief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1604/1996 Chatra & ORS.versus Mahadevji Neel Kanth, Godunda & ORS.Date of Order :: 17th April, 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Deelip Kawadia, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the respondents. ---- BY THE COURT: This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 25.08.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('Board').whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners against judgment dated 10.07.1990 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur ('RAA') and judgment dated 27.12.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Head QuarteRs.Udaipur ('the Collector') has been rejected. The respondent filed a suit for declaration of Khudkasht under Section 90 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act').eviction of the defendants under Section 183 of the Act from land admeasuring 22 Bighas 14 Biswas situated at Dadiya, Tehsil Gogunda, for injunction under Section 92 and for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
By this criminal misc petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 14.10.2014, passed on the application under section 391 CrPC. The application aforesaid was dismissed as not found maintainable to produce documentary evidence at the appellate stage. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred certain judgments, wherein, it is held that documentary as well as oral evidence can be allowed under section 391 CrPC. In view of above, prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and allow the application. Learned counsel for non-petitioner submits that section 391 CrPC applies only for oral evidence and not for documentary. He has referred judgment of this court in the case of Jugal Kishore versus Roshan Lal , [1999 CrLR(Raj)203]. The prayer is made to dismiss the petition as application under section 391 CrPC is not maintainable to lead documentary evidence. Various paras of the judgment in the case of Jugal Kishore (supra) were referred to show as to why section 391 CrPC is not appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL FIRs.APEAL NO.57/1986 Rameshwar Lal and ORS.versus Jai Prakash and ORS.Date of Judgment :: 04.02.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the appellants. Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the respondents. ----- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-defendant No.1 was decreed; sale deed dated 15.6.1974 to the extent of plaintiff No.1's share was cancelled on payment of Rs.13,500/- by the plaintiff No.1 to defendants No.1 to 3 within a period of two months; plaintiffs were held not entitled to possession of the suit house from the defendants-appellants; suit filed by the plaintiff No.2 for cancellation of sale deed was held pre-mature and the plaintiff No.1 was held entitled to costs from the defendant No.4. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1. This appeal came up before us for orders on2. An application seeking suspension of sentence, but with consent of counsel for parties we have heard the appeal itself finally.3. In brief, facts of the case are that complainant Magh Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Dungargarh on 19.2.2006 at 08:15 AM. As per the written report, on 17.2.2006 at about 10:00 PM Jagmal Singh and Ranjeet Singh conveyed Magh Singh that his brother Mool Singh has received certain injuries and he is lying in unconscious state. Magh Singh then rushed to the field and found Mool Singh lying in a jeep of Ramnarain in unconscious state. Parta Ram, Karni Singh and Kheta Ram were also sitting in the same jeep. Mool Singh was brought to the hospital at Bikaner where he was declared dead. After returning to village, on inquiry Kheta Ram informed that Mool Singh alongwith Koja Ram came to him on 17.2.2006 and demanded a sum of Rs.200/- i.e. said to be due. He then gave a "aadia" blow t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No. 12/2008, Smt. Geeta Devi v. Dr. Surendra Mai Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya v. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 7.9.2015 passed by the Director and Joint Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner, who was initially appointed as Assistant Revenue Inspector on 22.12.1983 was last promoted in 1994 on the post of Revenue Inspector and at the time when the order impugned placing the petitioner under suspension was passed, he was discharging his duties on the post of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Itawa. It is inter-alia indicated in the writ petition that in the year 2009, the services of the petitioner were transferred from the Municipal Board, Kethun to Municipal Board, Rawatbhata where he was posted as Executive Officer. The Anti Corruption Bureau ('ACB') lodged an FIR on 18.7.2012 against the petitioner and Chairman, Municipal Board for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac...
Tag this Judgment!