Shyama Kant Jha And Anr. vs Smt. Shakuntala Pandey on 4 November, 2004
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
plaintiff has taken a loan of Rs.25000/- from him on one
occasion and Rs.15000/- on another occasion and, thereafter,
he has not paid the same and for which a written panchnama
was prepared. Thus, the plaintiff has retaliated by filing this
suit. It has also been contended that many witnesses have
been examined on the issue of this panchayati as well as
panchnama. Learned counsel submits that it is clear from the
records that the plaintiff has taken loan from the State Bank of
India for running a dairy farm and, thus, he cannot have an
income of Rs.6659/- only. Learned counsel further submitted
that the plaintiff is having other vacant premises also which
can satisfy his requirement. It has also been raised on behalf
of the petitioner that the court below has shirked from
deciding the issue of partial eviction in a proper perspective.
He has placed reliance upon few decisions of this Court in
Nagendra Prasad Barnwal Vs. Jitendra Prasad Barnwal
8
{1998(2) PLJR 582}, Birendra Singh Vs. Shankar Sah &
another {1998(2) PLJR 118} and Shyama Kant Jha and
another Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Pandey { 2004(4) PLJR 843},
inviting this Court to hold that the court below was required to
record a finding upon partial eviction in accordance with the
law laid down in aforesaid cases. It is submitted that in the
present case, the same having not been done in accordance
with law, the judgment of eviction is vitiated on this ground
also.