Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-01-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1757
..... trial along with others arraigned before the court, who were found to be innocent during the inquiry/investigation conducted by the investigating agency. the provisions of section 319 of the code confer an extraordinary power and should not be easily resorted to. during the investigation, all the petitioners were found innocent and accordingly, ..... 1978crilj165 , the apex court observed that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, interference by the high court is absolutely necessary and nothing contained in section 397(2) of the code of criminal procedure can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the high court.7. in the present case, ..... passed by judicial magistrate 1st class, faridabad whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial along with other accused on the application moved by prosecution under section 319 of the code of criminal procedure, and also the order dated 7-1-2005 (annexure p-2) passed by additional sessions judge, faridabad vide which .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-02-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR2
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. This plaintiff has field this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.1.2006, passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby after setting aside the order dated 15.10.2003, passed by the trial Court, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the defendants (respondents herein) has been allowed, ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.10.1992 passed by the then Sub Judge, 1st Class in Civil suit No. 241 dated 15.6.1990, titled Rajesh Kumar v. Des Raj and Ors. has been set aside, the said suit has been restored to its original number and a direction has been issued to the trial Court to further proceed with the suit in accordance with law.2. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the petition and the impugned order.3. In this case, the petitioner filed suit for possession by way of pre-emption on 15.6.1990. In that suit, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-02-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR111
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.1. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises seeking his eviction on the ground that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered rent w.e.f. May, 1990, that the tenant had made alterations in the demised premises and that the landlord requires the premises for personal use and occupation. The tenant upon notice disputed the claim of the landlord.2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-1. Whether the tender made is legal and valid? OPR2. Whether the respondent has caused material alteration in the disputed property? OPP3. Whether the disputed property is required to the petitioner for his personal use? OPP4. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected? OPA5. Relief.3. The Rent Controller after deciding all these issue in favour of the petitioner-tenant dismissed the ejectment petition by order dated 21.4.2003. However, the appeal carried by the respondent-landlord met with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-03-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR23
..... the statutory provisions does not lead to any such inference so as to entitle the non-resident indian to seek eviction in terms of the provisions of section 13-b of the act.11. consequently. i do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this court in exercise of its revisional ..... building as a whole rather than the part thereof demised to a particular tenant alone....10. learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that under section 13-b of the act, the landlord who has inducted the tenant alone entitled to seek eviction and not the person who has purchased the properly when the tenants were already ..... of the petitioner is in respect of separate and distinct building and, therefore, the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of only one tenant under section 13-b of the act and not in respect of all the tenants in respect of the building owned by the landlord. however. i am unable to accept the argument raised .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-03-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR412
Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 6.11.2003, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent-defendant to give his specimen thumb impression in order to seek fresh expert report has been dismissed.2. In this case, the petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale dated 2.7.1999 with regard to land measuring 16 kanals 14 marlas, which was agreed by the respondent to be sold to the petitioner. The respondent, in this written statement, has denied the execution of the said agreement as well as the receipt of the earnest amount.3. In order to prove thumb impression of the respondent on the agreement, the petitioner moved an application for taking specimen thumb impressions of the respondent, which was allowed and the specimen thumb ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-03-2006
Reported in : (2006)144PLR300
..... defendants in appeal. it was observed that the suit of the plaintiffs, was dismissed principally on the ground that the plaintiffs, did not obtain leave to file the suit under section 91 cpc and also did not obtain the order on their application under order 1 rule 8 c.p.c. to file the suit in a representative capacity. therefore it ..... p. ramaswami ayyar and ors. a.i.r. 1933 privy council 183 the question of violation of order 1 rule 9 c.p.c. was considered in the context of section 11 explanation 6 c.p.c. which enjoins that where the persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or a private right claimed in common for themselves ..... the judgment dated 9.12.1985 recorded by sub judge 1st class kharar? op parties.4. whether suit in the present form is not maintainable? opp5. whether plaintiffs by their act and conduct are estopped from filing the suit? opd6. whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? opp7. whether suit is barred by principles of resjudicata? opp8. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-07-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR114
..... under order vii rule ii of the code seeking rejection of plaint by arguing that the suit was not maintainable on account of the provisions of section 41(h) of the specific relief act, 1963 and the only remedy available to the plaintiff-respondent was to file a suit for possession by way of specific performance. the application was ..... nos. 3 and 4. the plea taken by counsel for defendant/applicant that the suit of the plaintiff is totally barred under the provisions of section 41(h) of the specific relief act as the efficacious remedy is only a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement cannot be accepted at this stage, because from ..... the plaintiff-respondent jai parkash and without his consent has directed the defendant-petitioner to transfer the suit land to a third party. defendant-petitioner could not have acted on the directions of narender kumar alone. in a suit for specific performance no relief could have been claimed against a co-party to the agreement to sell. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-07-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1866
..... in the submission of the cbi that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under section 438 of the code. in a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also ..... to the filing of the present petitions.9. counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have joined investigation, pursuant to notices, served upon them, under section 160 of the cr.p.c. and have co-operated fully with the central bureau of investigation. they have undergone polygraph tests and as investigation with regard ..... krishan lal, who was allegedly arrested on 30-8-2005 from his village and tortured by the cbi. apprehensive of similar treatment, the petitioners filed petitions, under section 438 of the cr.p.c. before the special judge, cbi, ambala.8. after issuance of notice and in the presence of counsel for the cbi, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-08-2006
Reported in : (2006)142PLR789
m.m. kumar, j.1. this petition filed under section 115 of the code of the civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the code') prays for quashing the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned trial court restraining the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-08-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2725
..... was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the appellant in connection with demand for dowry. in this connection, we would also like to refer here section 113-b of the indian evidence act, which reads as under:presumption as to dowry death --when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of woman and it is ..... in the report ex. p1 of chemical examiner.17. before we proceed further, let us examine section 304-b of ipc and section 113-b of the indian evidence act. according to section 304-b of ipc, which talks of dowry death, this section lays down 'where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or ..... trial court has erred while holding him (karnail singh-appellant) guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of ipc. in that, appellant-karnail singh was held to have administered some poisonous substance forcibly to jasbir kaur and his said act was seen by her elder brother padarath singh, complainant (p.w. 2), who on the fateful day .....
Tag this Judgment!