Sikkim Court July 2009 Judgments
Sita Devi and anr. Vs. Shamsher Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Sik8
S.P. Wangdi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge. South Sikkim at Namchi dated 30-5-2008 in T.S. Case No. 4 of 2006, whereby applications filed by the revisionists herein for being impleaded as parties to the suit were rejected.2. At the very outset, it may be stated that the respondent No. 3 neither appeared nor was he represented by any counsel despite notice. Respondent No. 2 appeared in person only on 15-4-2009. On perusal of the records of the trial Court of T.S. Case No. 4 of 2006, the position was similar even there. The only ones to contest the petitions in the Court below were the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the matter was heard in the absence of respondents 2 and 3.3. In order to deal with the case at hand, it would not be necessary to set out the detailed facts of the case but only that much as would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition.4. It appears that th...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Bahadur Rai and ors. Vs. Golman Rai and ors.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Sik12
ORDERS.P. Wangdi, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against an order dated 1-07-2008 passed by the learned District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No. 19 of 2005 rejecting an application under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit appeared to be barred by the law of limitation.2. In order to dispose of this petition, it would not be necessary to delve into the details of the facts involved in the suit except to the extent that Title Suit No. 19 of 2005 was filed by a set of descendents of one late Dhan Bir Rai, who are the respondents herein against another set, who are the petitioners, seeking to stake claim over certain landed properties under the possession and enjoyment of the latter. During the proceedings of the suit before the learned trial Court, written statement appears to have been filed and evidence recorded to some extent after framing a number of issues, one of which was 'whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prasad Vs. Niraj Thapa and anr.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jul-03-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4516
ORDERAftab H. Saikia, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Ajoy Rathi and Ms. Sushma Pradhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. T. Namgyal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in the instant revision petition.2. Since the delay in question has already been condoned vide order dated 3-7-2009 passed in Crl. Misc. Application No. 08/2009 as well as keeping in view the question of law raised in this revision petition and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, who have already entered appearance on their behalf respectively, we propose to dispose of this revision petition today itself at the admission stage.3. The basic question of law involved in the instant revision petition is as to whether a criminal appeal can be disposed of on merits by the appellate Court without hearing the appellant or his or her engaged counsel. The answer is in negative.4. Law is settled on this question. In Ram Naresh Yadav v. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›