Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-11-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR363
Viney Mittal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. R.S.A. No. 46 of 1984 and R.S.A. No. 47 of 1984 as similar facts and common questions of law are involved in the both the cases. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from R.S.A. No. 46 of 1984.2. The defendants having lost concurrently, before the two courts below, have chosen to file the present Regular Second Appeal. The plaintiff Rajinder filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in is possession over the suit land from dispossessing him from the suit land without due process of law. It was pleaded by him that land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas is in his possession for the last more than seven years, prior to the filing of the suit and that his possession has been peaceful. It was claimed that the defendants were trying to interfere in his possession without any justification and along with other owners, were trying to forcibly dispossess him from the suit lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-11-2006
Reported in : (2006)142PLR511
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The defendants-Vendees from Mohinder Kaur, are in second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff along with defendant No. 2 are owners in possession of land measuring 86 kanals 9 marlas; for setting aside undated will allegedly executed by Pritam Singh in favour of defendant No. 1 Mohinder Kaur and the decree dated 16.12.1966 (correct date 16.11.1966) based on fraudulent Will, was decreed.2. One Pritam Singh was owner of land measuring 86 kanals 9 marlas of land situated in village Sargondi, Tehsil Phillaur. He died on 13.5.1965, leaving behind three daughters, namely, Naranjan Kaur, Chhindo, Mohinder Kaur and one son Gurbax Singh. After the death of Pritam Singh, one of his daughters, namely, Mohinder Kaur filed a civil suit alleging Will by Pritam Singh in her favour. On the basis of said Will, a decree declaring Mohinder Kaur as heir of Pritam Singh was passed on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-12-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1393
..... selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes did not constitute an offence under section 489-c of the indian penal code.8. the recover of currency notes in this case are, obviously take. they are fake to the naked eye and certainly appeared ..... 16 notes bearing no. 7sg 666317 etc. etc. after completion of investigation, pirthi singh was sent up for trial. at the trial charge was framed against the appellant under section 489-c, ipc to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.3. the main witnesses examined by the prosecution were hc manjit singh (p.w. 1), hc ..... for possession of rs. 34,900/- counterfeit currency. the learned trial judge passed judgment against pirthi singh on november 12, 2003, found him guilty for an offence under section 489-c of the indian penal code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 31/2 years and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-12-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR49
Pritam Pal, J.1. Heard on the point of admission of this appeal.2. Without going into the details, suffice it to say that Ajmer Kaur, Plaintiff-respondent No. 1, widow of Manohar Singh, had filed a suit for possession of the disputed property on the basis of inheritance of her husband-Manohar Singh, who died in the year 1995. In her suit she had aiso challenged a family Will dated 18.12.1994 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 9 Bhupinder Singh and appellant Yadwinder Singh. They both were impleaded as defendants before the learned trial Court through their mother and father respectively, Ultimately, the suit field by Ajmer Kaur, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was decreed and then the appeal field by Yadwinder Singh only through his mother Jaswinder Singh, was also dismissed.3. Now the sole contention raised before this Court is that in fact, a legal error had been committed by the learned trial Court as no permission was granted to implead Bhupinder Singh and appellant Yadwinder Singh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-12-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR375
ORDERSatish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The present S.A.O. has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 11.5.2001 whereby the application filed by them under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. for readmission of their appeal was dismissed for default on 15.9.1993 as their counsel did not appear at the time of hearing of the appeal.2. In this case, the appellants filed a suit for declaration and possession against the respondents in the year, 1982. The said suit was dismissed on 10.12.1987. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. On 15.9.1993, the said appeal was dismissed in default as counsel for the appellants did not appear at the time of hearing of the appeal. Immediately thereafter on 13.10.1993, the appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. for readmission of the appeal and deciding the same on merits. In the application, which was supported by an affidavit, it was stated that the appellant could not present before the Court on the date o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-13-2006
Reported in : II(2006)ACC190; (2006)142PLR517
..... vehicle bearing registration no. dl-3-c-0155 insured by the petitioner. the petitioner has been permitted to take over the defence of the owner in terms of section 170 of the motor vehicles act.3. it is the case of the petitioner that since the accident has taken place with vehicle bearing registration no. hr-16-a-844, therefore, the owner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-13-2006
Reported in : (2006)142PLR621
..... and against the plaintiffs.6. against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal. the appellant also filed an application under order 23 rule 1(3) read with section 151 c.p.c. seeking permission to withdraw the appeal and the suit with permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action on the ground that the ..... gurdwara beerh baba budha sahib or sgpc, amritsar under the management of which is gurdwara itself. as such judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside and under section 23 rule 1(3) c.p.c. r/w 107 c.p.c., application is allowed and suit is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to institute fresh in respect .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-16-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR382
..... .1. this is a petition against order dated 23.8.1997 passed by presiding officer, special court, kaithal whereby present petitioner was charged for the offence under section 7 of the essential commodities act for contravention of provisions of clause 3 and 16(2) of haryana rice procurement and levy order, 1985 on the allegations that he did not deliver the levy .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-16-2006
Reported in : (2006)142PLR620
..... written statement.2. in the case, the respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioners under section 13 of the act for their ejectment from the demised premises, which is a shop. on notice issued to the petitioners, they appeared before the rent controller on 28.7.2003 for ..... satish kumar mittal, j.1. the petitioners, who are the tenants, have filed this revision petition under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for setting aside the order dated 5.11.2004 passed by the rent controller vide which their defence has been struck off on the ground of non-filing of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-16-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR4
..... in filing the appeal.6. in g. ramegowda v. spl. land acquisition officer : [1988]3scr198 , the hon'ble apex court has held that the expression 'sufficient cause in section 5 of the limitation act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals should be condoned in the interest of where no gross negligence ..... .2002 passed by the civil judge (sr. division), chandigarh was dismissed on the ground of limitation.2. the petitioners filed the aforesaid appeal along with an application under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of delay of 60 days. the said appeal was filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the civil judge (sr. division), chandigarh vide which the .....
Tag this Judgment!