Sikkim Court August 2010 Judgments
Ram Krishna Pradhan Vs. Bhagawat Prasad and Others
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
DINAKARAN, CJ. 1. The Revision Petitioner herein is the 10th defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed an application for framing of additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 and the Revision Petitioner/10th defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement with counter claim under Order VI Rule 17. 2. Conceded by the parties, evidence has already been led to substantiate their respective pleadings. 3. Under such circumstances, the 1st respondent/ plaintiff sought for permission under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing the following additional issues: (i) Whether the Indian Easement Act, 1882 is enforced in the State of Sikkim? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to easementary right as claimed by him under the provision of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 or some other provisions of law? 4. The learned Civil Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent/ plaintiffs for framing additional issues, by his order dated 30.07.2010, but r...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Chettri Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
DINAKARAN, C.J. (1.) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi. The appellant questions the correctness of the judgment dated 23/12/2008 rendered in the said Sessions case, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. on the charge that the appellant committed the murder of his younger brother Shiva Kumar Chettri on 26/2/2006. The charge against the appellant was that at about 3.30 p.m. on 26/2/2006 the appellant committed murder by intentionally causing death of Shiva Kumar Chettri of Damthang Dew Busty, South Sikkim, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302,I. P. C. (2.) When the accused was questioned of the charges, the accused denied the same and pleaded that he was innocent, but falsely implicated in the case. (3.) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 prosecution witnesses including the Investigation Officer. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›