JEET RAM KISHORE Vs. SUNDER SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-2004-4-2
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
April 02,2004
Jeet Ram Kishore
Appellant
VERSUS
SUNDER SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
A THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR M VENKATACHALAM POTTI AUTHORISED OFFICIAL AND INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M VENKATACHALAM POTTI AUTHORISED OFFICIAL AND INCOME TAX OFFICER:A THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR [REFERRED TO]PANNALAL BINJRAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL PLAINTIFF THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF MADHYA PRADESH THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ASSAM THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ORISSA THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR T VS. UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAI BAHADUR SHREERAM DURGA PRASAD PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
POLESTAR ELECTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED UNION OF INDIA DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LIMITED BLUE STAR LIMITED DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LIMITED DEEPAK OIL MILLS DEEPAK OIL MILLS TRADING ENGINEERS DEEPAK OIL MILLS KRISHAN VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER SALES TAX: J K SYNTHETICS LTD [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHAR VS. RAJ KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RIB TAPES INDIA PVT LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VATAN MAL VS. KAILASH NATH [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NELSON MOTIS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAYA RESTAURANT VS. P ANJANAPPA [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. NARESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. SIVARASAN ALIAS RAGHU ALIAS SIVARASA [REFERRED TO]
B K N PILLAI VS. P PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SCENE SCREEN PVT LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN DEEN VS. PREETI LAL [REFERRED TO]
FRITIZ T M CLEMENT VS. SUDHAKAR NADAR [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. INDIAN BANK [REFERRED TO]
ALMU VS. GUSAOON [REFERRED TO]
HARI DASS VS. KALI DASS [REFERRED TO]
TEJU VS. BHADAR [REFERRED TO]
E PRASAD GOUD VS. B LAKSHMANA GOUD [REFERRED TO]
FIRM L HAZARI MAL KUTHIALA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE AMBALA CANTT [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. KEHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MADHU VS. RANBIR SINGH DABAS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-459] [REFERRED TO]JAVED REHMAN VOHRA VS. K R JAYRAM [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-155] [REFERRED]
M M YUSUF VS. R L JADHAV [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-409] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM KAUSHAL VS. SH. RAJAN DOGRA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SINGH VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
DEVMANI VS. KHEM RAJ & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-144] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS revision is directed against the order dated 1 -8 -2003, whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"
for amendment of their written statement.
(2.)WITH a view to properly understand and appreciate the controversy involved in this revision, case set up by the parties, out of which this revision has arisen, and on which, learned counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, need to be briefly noted. These are : -
That a suit was filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" on the basis of title qua the land as detailed in the plaint again the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from, in any manner, interfering with his possession and ownership. This suit was filed on 19 -9 -1995. Written statement was filed on 29 -9 -1995. Issues were framed on 7 -4 -2000 by the trial Court. This suit is being contested and resisted by the defendants. They have claimed passage, but from which particular parcel of land and where it exists and whether it is over the land in suit belonging to the plaintiff, there was no averment in the written statement. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that the defendants have not disputed the title of the plaintiff to the suit land. Plaintiff concluded his evidence. Thereafter, it was listed for the first time for evidence of the defendants on 3 -1 -2003. No steps had admittedly been taken by the defendants by either filing list of witness and/or by depositing the process fee as well as road and diet money of the witnesses intended to be summoned by them.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the parties were further not at variance that the trial Court from 3 -1 -2003 adjourned the case to 27 -3 -2003. Then it was adjourned to 8 -5 -2003. It was also adjourned to 3 -7 -2003, subject to costs of Rs. 200/ -. This was the last opportunity to the defendants for producing evidence. Again it was adjourned to 1 -9 -2003 as last opportunity. It was also again adjourned to 10 -11 -2003. Again, this was the last opportunity allowed to lead evidence by the defendants, subject to costs of Rs.500/ -.
(2.)WITH a view to properly understand and appreciate the controversy involved in this revision, case set up by the parties, out of which this revision has arisen, and on which, learned counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, need to be briefly noted. These are : -
That a suit was filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" on the basis of title qua the land as detailed in the plaint again the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from, in any manner, interfering with his possession and ownership. This suit was filed on 19 -9 -1995. Written statement was filed on 29 -9 -1995. Issues were framed on 7 -4 -2000 by the trial Court. This suit is being contested and resisted by the defendants. They have claimed passage, but from which particular parcel of land and where it exists and whether it is over the land in suit belonging to the plaintiff, there was no averment in the written statement. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that the defendants have not disputed the title of the plaintiff to the suit land. Plaintiff concluded his evidence. Thereafter, it was listed for the first time for evidence of the defendants on 3 -1 -2003. No steps had admittedly been taken by the defendants by either filing list of witness and/or by depositing the process fee as well as road and diet money of the witnesses intended to be summoned by them.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the parties were further not at variance that the trial Court from 3 -1 -2003 adjourned the case to 27 -3 -2003. Then it was adjourned to 8 -5 -2003. It was also adjourned to 3 -7 -2003, subject to costs of Rs. 200/ -. This was the last opportunity to the defendants for producing evidence. Again it was adjourned to 1 -9 -2003 as last opportunity. It was also again adjourned to 10 -11 -2003. Again, this was the last opportunity allowed to lead evidence by the defendants, subject to costs of Rs.500/ -.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.