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

1991 Supreme(Cal) 63

MONORANJAN MALLICK, M.N.RAY
KASSEM GHARAMI – Appellant
Versus
NIAMAT GHARAMI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sibani Bhagat, Soumya Chakraborty, TAIMUR HOSSAIN

M. R. MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-defendants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 19/86 rejecting the petitioners' additional written statement and counter-claim on the ground that the counter-claim is barred by limitation that the petitioners have not paid the requisite court fee for the said counter-claim.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved, the defendants-petitioners have moved this Court in revision contending inter alia that the additional written statement and counter-claim filed by the petitioners have given the date on which the course of action arose as 24. 12. 87 and when admittedly this additional written statement and the counter-claim were filed within three years thereof, the counter-claim could not be rejected by the learned Judge on the ground when the petitioners appealed in this Court on 24. 4. 86 and prayed for time to file written statement, they can be said to be well acquainted with the facts of the suit at least since that date and consequently, this additional written statement and counter-claim having been filed more than three years thereafter, are barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THE Ld. Ad







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