Skip to content


Hari Dass Vs. Babu Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 24 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954HP16
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 115
AppellantHari Dass
RespondentBabu Ram
Advocates: K.C. Pandit, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredJanki Das v. Kalu Ram
Excerpt:
- .....exist a partnership has been wrongly placed on the defendant. if it be a fact, as contended by the learned counsel, that the plaintiff alleged a partnership and the defendant denied it, there seems to be force in his argument. but revisional jurisdiction of this court cannot be availed of for the purpose of lifting wrongly-placed onus from the shoulders of one party and putting it on those of the other. the trial court had the jurisdiction to put, the onus on a party, and the mere fact that it has erred in doing so would not justify interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner cites the case of -- 'janki das v. kalu ram', air 1936 pat 250 (a). that was however a somewhat extreme case since the court summarily relected a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chowdhry, J.C.

1. I have heard Sri K. C. Pandit Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, but see no reason to admit this revision. His argument is that the onus of proof with regard to issue No. 1 as to whether there did or did not exist a partnership has been wrongly placed on the defendant. If it be a fact, as contended by the learned counsel, that the plaintiff alleged a partnership and the defendant denied it, there seems to be force in his argument. But revisional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be availed of for the purpose of lifting wrongly-placed onus from the shoulders of one party and putting it on those of the other. The trial Court had the jurisdiction to put, the onus on a party, and the mere fact that it has erred in doing so would not justify interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner cites the case of -- 'Janki Das v. Kalu Ram', AIR 1936 Pat 250 (A). That was however a somewhat extreme case since the Court summarily relected a prayer to try a preliminary issue on a point of law and in its summary jurisdiction did not even express any opinion as to whether the question of law would be sufficient to dispose of the case. In that circumstance it was held that grave hardship might be caused. In the present case, the placing of onus upon the defendant-petitioner is likely rather to injure the opposite party, the plaintiff-respondent, for it might lull him into a false sense of security and thereby ultimately prejudice his interests.

3. The application in revision is summarilyrejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //