Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-07-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1687
prem shanker asopa, j. 1. that by this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.4.2005 passed by district judge, tonk, whereby two applications filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal one under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 c.p.c. dated 19.10.01 for amendment of written statement and another under order 41 rule 27 c.p.c. dated 17.1.2002, for taking subsequent events on record were dismissed.2. briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that a decree of eviction was passed on 16.9.1994 against the petitioner-appellant in a civil suit for eviction filed by the respondent plaintiff on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the district judge, tonk.3. during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed one application on 19.10.01 under order 6 rule 17 for amendment in the written statement on the ground that in the civil suit decree of the disputed shop dated 16.9.94 was passed on the ground of necessity of gauri shanker, who has opened a shop no. f-4 in new mandi yard, newai on 24.11.1994. therefore, the necessity of the plaintiffs stand satisfied and amendment in the written statement is necessary. alongwith the said application the petitioner filed a photocopy of the inauguration card of the said shop on 24.11.1994.4. the another application was filed on 17.1.2002 under order 41 rule 27 c.p.c. for taking documents/subsequent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj1853; 2006(2)WLC390
ashok parihar, j.1. a chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner (since deceased), the concerned employee, under rule 16 of the cca rules vide memorandum dated 13.3.1987. disciplinary authority exonerated the concerned employee vide order dated 18.7.1988. however, the appellate authority issued a show cause notice to the concerned employee under rule 32 of the cca rules for imposing appropriate penalty. after receiving reply to the show cause notice, the appellate authority imposed penalty of removal vide order dated 20.3.1989. further revision to the state government against the above order has also been dismissed vide order dated 25.8.1992. hence, the present writ petition.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no penalty has been imposed by the disciplinary authority, the provisions of rule 32 could not have been invoked by the appellate authority. the point of limitation has also been raised on behalf of the petitioner.3. after hearing learned counsel for the pies, i have carefully gone through the material on record as also the relevant provisions of the cca rules.4. rule 32 of the cca rules is reproduced here as under:32. the authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 lies may, if no appeal has been preferred therefrom, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding held by an authority subordinate to it and after making further .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-29-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ4721; RLW2007(2)Raj1620
s.n. jha, c.j.1. a short but significant question of law regarding interpretation of sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) rules 1995 is involved in these two appeals. the appeals arise from the same judgment of the learned single judge. they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. respondent no. 1, tikam singh, filed writ petition for quashing the order of the district magistrate, pali dated 16-6-2005 appointing shri mahesh bora as advocate to conduct the trial in sessions case no. 85/2005 arising from fir no. 36/2005 of jaitaran police station, and the order of the special judge sc & st cases, pali dated 30-9-2005 rejecting his (tikam singh's) application challenging the competence of shri mahesh bora to conduct the trial. the respondent also sought direction to restrain shri bora from appearing as special public prosecutor in the case.3. sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) rules, 1995 (in short 'the rules') empowers the district magistrate/sub-divisional magistrate to engage advocate to conduct cases in special courts with respect to the offences under the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 (in' short 'the act') on request of the victims of atrocity. it was in exercise of the said power that the district magistrate, pali appointed shri mahesh bora to conduct the aforesaid case. by the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-01-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj536
n.p. gupta, j.1. these two appeals have been filed by the defendant tenant, against the different judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below in two different suits, instituted by two different landlords, and decreeing both the suits for eviction, and also determining standard rent in favour of both the landlords.2. in my view, the totality of circumstances of both the cases is such, that i think it appropriate to decide both the appeals by this common judgment.3. appeal no. 50 arises out of the suit instituted by sri chand, while appeal o.49 arises out of the suit instituted by smt. madan kanwar. the two plaintiffs are husband and wife respectively.4. the facts of the case are, that the suit premises earlier belonged to one owner being milap chand, of whom the defendant appellant was a tenant, at a monthly rent of rs. 550/-. this properly was sold by milap chand to the two plaintiffs, by executing two different sale deeds; one in favour of each of the plaintiffs, on 12.8.1961. thus, each respective purchaser plaintiff became owner of respective portion of the suit premises, while the appellant was tenant in the entire premises, under one tenancy. the husband filed the suit for eviction, on the ground of default, and reasonable and bonafide necessity, alleging inter alia, that he lives in singhpol, which is located at a height, and he feels difficulty in coming and going from there. it is also alleged, that the plaintiff is carrying on business as a tenant, in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-21-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)WLN411
rajesh balia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the applicants. the applicants sandeep gehlot and smt. vijay laxmi @ vijeta who is daughter of pukhraj parihar and smt. anandi devi were married, according to hindu rites on 17.02.2004 but as the marriage did not succeed both the parties resorted to seek dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by agreement. they jointly moved an application to seek a decree to that affect before the family court, jodhpur. the said application was accepted by the family court vide order dated 17.03.2006 and the decree for dissolution of marriage was passed.2. after passing of the decree, an application has been moved for making correction in the description of name of wife which was stated in the joint application as smt. vijeta w/o sandeep gehlot and daughter of pukhraj parihar stated that the name of wife would be correctly described as smt. vijay laxmi @ vijeta w/o sandeep gehlot and d/o pukhraj parihar and to seek consequential amendment in decree. this application was also moved jointly by husband and wife and is supported by affidavit of the father of girl that the maidan name of his daughter seeking the decree of dissolution of marriage was vijay laxmi but due to insistence for change of name by the family members of husband, she was christened as vijeta by her husband's family in the marriage card she was so described. it is for that reason the joint application was moved in the name of sandeep and vijeta. but correct name of wife at .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-17-2006
Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj881
gopal krishan vyas, j.1. this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge order dated 5.9.2005 whereby the learned chief judl. magistrate, pali was an order suo moto exercising discretion under section 165 of the evidence act. by order impugned dated 5.9.2005, the complainant was directed for the production of documents after hearing final arguments on 31.8.2005. it is further ordered that the case will be finally heard again on 30.9.2005.2. according to facts of the case narrated by the petitioner, complainant was filed by non-petitioner complainant under section 138, negotiable instruments act, read with section 420 ipc alleging inter alia that the complainant financed for old ambassador car, 1990 model to the petitioner with a sum of rs. 1,09,000/-. the said car bears registration no. rj-22-t-0131. the repayment of the loan amount was to be made in 25 instalments on agreed terms and conditions and, in default, it was agreed that 36 per cent interest will be charged. it is submitted by the petitioner that complainant alleged that the petitioner did not make payment according to the instalments fixed and, upon reminders given by the complainant, he gave a cheque bearing no, 1711263 dated 28.8.2001 for the rs. 57,000/- drawn on pali urban co-operative bank ltd., city branch, pali in favour of the complainant.3. in the complaint, the complainant alleged that the said cheque was presented before the bank for encashment, however, it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-01-2006
Reported in : AIR2006Raj162; 2006(2)WLC463
orderk.s. rathore, j.1. the substantial question of law involved in this writ petition is whether the provisions of hindu succession act, 1956 is applicable to the member of the scheduled tribes.2. brief facts of the case are that non-petitioners smt. shanti devi & ramdhani filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and cancellation of mutation entries and declaration of gift deed dated 6-5-1978 executed by smt. itbai in favour of the petitioner gulab as null and ineffective and also for correction of entries in revenue record with regard to agriculture land in question against the petitioner and one smt. itbai, in the court of sd gangapur city.3. the petitioner also filed a cross suit for declaration of tenancy right, injunction and correction of revenue entries against the non-petitioner nos. 2 to 5 with regard to the same agriculture land in question.4. both the suits were consolidated and transferred to the court of assistant collector, sapotra, gangapur city.5. the assistant collector, sapotra al- lowed the suit of the petitioner and dismissed the suit of the respondents-shanti devi and ram dhani vide judgment dated 12-11-1987.6. the respondents filed an appeal before the revenue appellate authority. the revenue appellate authority vide judgment dated 25 3-1989 upheld the judgment passed by the assistant collector, sapotra.7. aggrieving and dissatisfying with the judgment dated 25-3-1989, the respondents preferred an appeal before the board of revenue. the board of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-19-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj137
dinesh maheshwari, j.1. this is claimants appeal seeking enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the motor accidents claims tribunal, jodhpur in its award dated 26.4.1993 made in claim case no. 100/1990 in the sum of rs. 92,905/- inclusive of interest on account of accidental death of satyanarain, 30 years in age, husband of appellant no. 1, son of appellant no. 2 and father of appellant nos. 3 to 5. only the question of quantum of compensation being involved in this appeal, a brief reference t the background facts would suffice.2. the accident in question occurred on 1.1.1990 at about 5.00 p.m. near dangiyawas petrol pump on jodhpur to bilara road when the victim satyanarain standing on the kuchcha road was hit by an ambassador car bearing number 82b-22902 (1530) belonging to non-applicant no. 1 union of india and driven by non-applicant no. 2 mangu ram. satyanarain sustained several injuries and was admitted in mahatma gandhi hospital, jodhpur where he breathed his last on 13.1.1990 while undergoing treatment.3. stating the age of the deceased at 30 years and his earning at rs. 1,500/- per month while working as turner on lathe machine and as welder, his dependents claimed compensation in the sum of rs. 6,60,000/- for the loss suffered by them including treatment expenditure during hospitalisation of the deceased from 1.1.1990 to 13.1.1990. the claim application was contested by the nonapplicants denying rash and negligent driving of the car. on the pleadings .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-11-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj142
narendra kumar jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for both the parties.2. the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction and injunction in mandatory form in respect of the disputed 'bada' as well as the disputed gate. the lower court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants in respect of the disputed gate marked as 'x'. being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by defendant madan la before the district & sessions judge, jaipur district, jaipur, which was transferred for its disposal to the court of additional civil judge & additional chief judicial magistrate no. 1, jaipur district, jaipur, which was registered as civil regular appeal no. 38/1984. the first appellate court, vide its judgment dated 5.3.1986, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1984 passed by the munsiff & judicial magistrate, 1st class, chomu, district jaipur, in suit no. 19/80. hence, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants.3. this court, while admitting the second appeal on 18.8.1987, framed following substantial questions of law:1. whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the statement of dw-1, jagdish, it is a case of misleading of the evidence?(2) whether on the admitted facts the court has drawn the wrong inference?(3) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that the appellate court has disturbed the finding regarding possession?(4) whether the court below has .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-10-2006
Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj166
khem chand sharma, j.1. this appeal under section 96 cpc arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1987 passed by the learned additional district judge no. 2. jaipur city, jaipur whereby the learned judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration.2. plaintiffs respondents filed a suit against defendant radhey shyam for declaration, possession, injunction and damages for use and occupation, with the averments that plaintiff no. 2 is a temple of thakurji shreeji, anna poornaji and mahadeoji, situated at jaiti-ki-kothi, chandarwaja, moti katla bazar, jaipur and there is a land beneath it measuring 5 bighas. one sadaram mushraf, kayastha by caste purchased a well and the said 5 bighas of land, for which a patta was granted by the then erst-while state of jaipur for the purpose of constructing temple of mahadeoji and annapurnaji which was accordingly constructed. shri sadaram handed over possession of the aforesaid land and building to panchan biradari kayasthan mathur chowkri ram chanderji, a committee of kayasthan constituted by kayastha inhabitants of chowkri ram chanderji, jaipur and since then the property remained in continuous possession, charge, control and management of the said panchan kayasthan and they also got constructed a temple, building and also managed the agricultural land attached to the temple which formed part of the grant. the said committee used to appoint pujaries, arrange bhograj, held functions and made constructions, additions and .....Tag this Judgment!