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

1968 Supreme(Cal) 133

S.A.MASUD
RAHINI ROY – Appellant
Versus
JETHMULL BHOJRAJ – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Tibrewalla

S. A. MASUD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of the petitioner, a partnership firm, under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a decree passed by me as an undefended suit on 8th September, 1967. Admittedly, this suit was instituted as a summary suit under Order XXXVII on three hundis for Rs. 10,000/- each payable to the plaintiff or order 180 days after the said date without grace. The said hundis were drawn by the petitioner firm, M/s. Jethmull Bhojraj on K. K. Sukhani and were purported to have been accepted by one K. C. Sukla, the defendant No. 2. The said hundis on maturity were duly presented to the defendant No, 2 for payment but were dishonoured by non-payment due notice of which was given to the defendant No. 1 also. The defendants having failed and neglected to pay the amounts of the said hundis, the present suit was instituted against the defendants for a decree for Rs. 35,365/- on 12th January, 1967. On 9th February, 1967, the defendant No. 1 was informed by one of its assistants that Writ of Summons in the said summary suit along with a notice dated 8th February, 1967, was purported to have been served upon the defendants. On 2






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