Surujmal Keshan vs Baliram Prosad Shah

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1943 Supreme(Cal) 180

Surujmal Keshan – Appellant
Versus
Baliram Prosad Shah – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Roxburgh, J. - This Rule has been obtained by the Defendant No. 1 in a suit before the Special Subordinate Judge, Assam Valley Districts, and is against an order passed by him restoring a case against the Defendants which was dismissed for default under Or. 9, r. 8 of the CPC on the 9th January, 1943. In restoring the case, the learned Judge remarked,-

So far as I have seen, the Plaintiffs had no sufficient cause that prevented them from appearing in Court on the 9th January, 1943, but the statement in para 8 of the w. s. of the Defendant No. 1 is 'that the Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover only this Defendant's share of liability under the mortgage, and not the whole amount as claimed.

2. He then further discusses some points in the written statement of Defendant No. 1, and mentions that the claim of Rs. 70,000 was based on a mortgage bond executed by Defendant No. 1 and two others whose heirs were co-Defendants with Defendant No. 1. He remarks that the execution of the mortgage deed was not denied by Defendant No. 1, and the receipt of the consideration therein was also not denied, and notes that the right to sue on the mortgage deed on the face of it concerned t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document