STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. ASHARAM
LAWS(MPH)-1995-11-40
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on November 27,1995

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
ASHARAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ROBERTSON V. MINISTER OF PENSIONS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. VIDHYAWATI [REFERRED TO]
FURNISS V. DAWSON [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJANANDINI DEVI VS. BIJENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BAIRAGARH BHOPAL VS. SUDHAKAR [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL VS. PARASRAM [REFERRED TO]
KAMESHWAR LAL VS. KING [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHOBHA VS. GOVT NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2003-4-68] [REFERRED]
JYOTI KEWAT VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2002-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. SANTRA [LAWS(SC)-2000-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
RADHESHYAM VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
R B ZAFRI VS. SHYAMABAI [LAWS(MPH)-2010-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA DEVI GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH COLLECTOR, BASTAR, JAGDALPUR VS. GOMTI PATEL W/O KAMLAKANT PATEL [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. GOKULBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VS. RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2022-3-130] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE unsuccessful defendants have filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 16. 8. 1988 rendered by Second Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Ratlam in C. O. S. No. 14-B of 1985, thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 20,100 with costs and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree till payment on Rs. 20. 000/ -.
(2.)FACTS lie in a narrow compass. The respondent held the post of Upper Division Teacher. On 16. 1. 84, he offered himself for family planning operation in the Primary Health Centre, Sailana. The operation was conducted and the respondent was applauded for his submission to operation in national interest. The operation, however, did not prove beneficial and even after operation, a daughter was born to him on 16. 4. 85. Irked, he issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the demand was not met, he filed the aforesaid civil suit for a decree of damages quantified at Rs. 20,000/- and the notice charges of Rs. 100/ -. He also claimed interest. The appellants opposed the claim. On evaluation of evidence, the learned trial Judge granted the decree as noted above.
(3.)DISSATISFIED by the decree, the appellants have filed this appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.