SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(AP) 301

V.RAJAGOPALA REDDY
T. SUKENDER REDDY – Appellant
Versus
M. SURENDER REDDY – Respondent


V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Court below on a petition filed under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC granting leave to defend the summary suit (O. S. No, 1746 of 1996) on condition of the petitioner- defendant depositing half of the suit amount in the Court, which should not however be withdrawn by the respondent-plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE said suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 2, C. P. C. on the basis of the promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the petitioner-defendant, for recovery of Rs. 1,36,000/-, in which the petitioner-defendant, filed an application seeking leave to defend the said suit. The petitioner-defendant admitted the execution of the suit promissory notes. According to him, he borrowed the amount five years back and at that time the respondent-plaintiff obtained his signatures on some blank stamped pronotes, receipts and a blank cheque and, subsequently, he repaid the said loan, but the respondent-plaintiff with a mala fide intention did not hand over the said papers and used them for filing the said suit.

( 3 ) THE trial Court after considering the entire material on record





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top