Datasets:
helloboyn
/
WMT25-TS

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
10
360
Ex. 3. endorsement and forwarding of endorsement by the officer-in-charge.
injury no.1 died and injury No. 2 was the result of stitches.
Devaki Sah stabbed the matter in the right side of Maheshwari Sah.
hence, the case of Paras Sah is entirely on different ground.
M/I - A scar of old wound right from forehead.
Rule 3 of the Rules provides the qualifications for a deed writer.
5- Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel has appeared for the appellants.
thereafter, no examination has been conducted for the last 12 years.
neither any objection nor any representation had been filed on his behalf.
this Court granted opportunity to N.R. 2 to file objections and objections.
they claim to identify the signature of their father on the will.
he also identified the Will (marked as Ex. 1).
the execution of the Will was the voluntary act of the testator.
advocate. - Mr. Jetcea Prasied, Bud Notifications, Mr.
the defendant had filed a title appeal before the lower appellate court.
when they came here they found that they had not received money.
the incident has happened due to the negligence driving of the vehicle.
4- The claim was contested by the appellant who is a purchaser.
the non-recording of his findings by the lower authority vitiate the order.
the defendant had also denied to pay any rent to the plaintiff.
in the absence of which the authority could not consider his case.
this Court is not interested in what had happened in the meanwhile.
heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
their evidence has been dealt with by the trial court very seriously.
there is no such disclosure that it was ever signed by PW-2.
the aforesaid incident was caused in the background of the land dispute.
4- The suit property is mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint.
thus, Dr. Sinha appears to be guilty of the said absence.
I also sent the application for special leave on 14.05.03 by post.
operational Practitioners Sub Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna.
27- With the aforementioned observations and reference, this application is decanted.
she also sustained injuries on her right hand and neck by others.
this witness has proved his written report by way of Exhibit 2.
now, therefore, this issue was not before the trial court.
Jamuna Devi, mother of Ram Kumar Singh, was also there.
at the time of escape, they were locked in a room.
in the absence of Panchas, he handed over both the sons.
after two days, Ram Kumar Singh had returned both the children.
the delinquent had urged that he be relieved from the suspension forthwith.
what the petitioner wanted was to revoke the suspension and nothing more.
8- PW-2 Gauri Mehto is the uncle and informant-in-law of the deceased.
10- PW-4 Champa Devi is the informator and mother of the deceased.
in the light of his evidence, he has been declared hostile.
this fact is secondary for the reason that it had more marks.
5- Under the observations made above, this persistent application is allowed.
6- With the aforesaid change of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed.
one day the kidnappers had advised him to talk to the sea.
two persons had asked him whether he had brought the entire amount.
12- PW-G is the informant-in-law and is the grandfather of the victim.
the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
3- To substantiate the prosecution case, 8 witnesses have been examined.
this version has been brought before this Court for the first time.
Hon'ble Rakesh Kumar, J. Hon'ble Dr. Naresh Sharma, J.
he applied for settlement of the suit land through his Commandant Officer.
the Collector handed over the file to DLR for enquiry and report.
(ii) Whether the lower Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted Ex.-II.
it provides that precedence should be given while entering into a settlement:
(E) to refugees from East Pakistan and Verma after 1.1.1964.
if this submission is accepted, it will create confusion and chaos.
the lower appellate court had recorded that the plaintiff is not landless.
hence, I do not find any force in this second appeal.
the appellants are on bail and are accordingly discharged of their liability.
prior to this incident, he had never seen Upendra with Krishna.
he has been identified in the Court as Krishna Yadav and Ravi.
he also stated that Krishan Yadav and others demanded ransom through telephone.
during this period, Krishna had also talked to her on mobile.
he also went to jail after the victim of the identification parade.
identification table is marked as Ext. 5 and 5/1.
Krishna Yadav was there with three persons and offered tea and biscuits.
he identified Krishna, Chandeshwar, Upendra and Bhola in the court.
he also identified his mobile, which was recovered from Ravi Mahes.
I read out my statement and made the signature as correct.
the defence was to be false implication on account of Panchayat elections.
PW-6 admits that a distant Rahman had filed a case against him.
thus, the court remains only the sole evidence of PW-6 informant.
she has not given any description about the injuries sustained by her.
he had thus worked before the 2003 Rules for almost a decade.
it had compelled the petitioner to file many suits and not one.
the authority cannot refuse to act on its own will or will.
many persons had come there after being panic and saw the incident.
there are three sons of Umu Choudhary, Kanhaiya and Kundan Choudhary.
the land dispute is going on between Dinesh Choudhary and Umesh Choudhary.
both the signatures have been noted as Ext. 1 and 1.
Dinesh Chaudhary, Umesh Choudhary and Ramesh Choudhary are the real brothers.
she has stated that she had sustained injuries only with an axe.
one bullet was recovered from the right parabolic region of the brain.
the bullet must have been fired from a distance of 1 meters.
he has proved the fardbayan which is marked as Ex. -A.
he also states that these injuries cannot be manufactured by friendly hands.
he cannot say whether the police referred them to the Government Hospital.
Dinesh Chaudhary and Shikant Choudhary have not been explained the injuries suffered.
the case prepared by Rashid is that she went to the college.
therefore, after the gift, the name of the jamabandi mother.
therefore, no finding could be recorded in favour of the plaintiff.
he also admits that there is a land dispute between the parties.
11- PW-7 Md. Yusuf is an eye witness of the incident.
this, according to the doctor, is a life threatening condition.
13- PW10 Ram Bal Singh is the Investigating Officer in this case.
all the appellants have been in custody for at least three weeks.
failure to pay compensation would result in simple imprisonment for three months.