Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
R.S.A. No. 1416 of 2004
Darshan Singh
v.
Ujjagar Singh
{Decided on 17/07/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 and 2: None.
Civil Procedure--Injunction--Encroachment--Suit property was Gair mumkin passage and vested in Gram Panchayat--Defendant No.4 failed to establish that he was owner of suit property by way of adverse possession--Contention of defendants 4 that suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed--Since Gram Panchayat had not impleaded as a party in suit--Not tenable as plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against Gram Panchayat--In earlier suit Gram Panchayat was restrained from dispossessing defendant no.4 & 2 from suit property forcibly and illegally--But in earlier suit plaintiffs were not party and is involved in that suit was different--In circumstance, suit of plaintiff seeking direction that suit land was common passage and same is illegally encroached upon by rightly defendants--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rule 1& 2 (Para 6)
----------------
Balwant Singh v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Goel
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
RSA No. 1216 of 2009
Balwant Singh & Ors.
v.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Goel
{Decided on 17/07/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate.
(A) Pronote--Presumption--Once plaintiff is able to prove execution pronote, it is for consideration--It is for consideration--It is executant of pronote who has to rebut presumption available under Section 118--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118 (Para 6)
(B) Interest--Pronote--Suit for recovery--Award of interest pendente lite and further interest on decretal amount--Not permissible--Decree modified--Suit decreed for Rs.27000/-.--However interest @ 1% per month shall be payable on principal amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of suit till its realization. (Paras 8, 9 & 10)
------------
Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana & Anr.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.2326 of 2009
Suresh Pal
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 17/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Service and Labour Law--Appointment--Selection--Post of Assistant Engineer--Petitioner neither pleaded that he is in waiting list or that any waiting list was prepared--No waiting list was required to be prepared in view of specific instructions--Contention that candidate next in merit is required to be appointed against those posts which had remained unfilled on account of non-acceptance of offer of appointment made to selected candidates--Not tenable--Petitioner not entitled to appointment. (Para 10)
--------------------