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

1991 Supreme(Guj) 356

J.N.BHATT
MANGUBHAI MANSUKHRAM PANDYA – Appellant
Versus
PRANJIVAN TRIBHOVANDAS PUROHIT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: YOGESH S.MANKAD

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D. ). at Baroda in Special Civil Suit No. 312 of 1972 on 30-12-1975. Thus the plaintiffs have invoked the aids of the provisions of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (`code for short hereinafter) and have now come up before this Court by way of this appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated at the out set.

( 3 ) THE present appellants are the original plaintiffs who instituted the above suit for re- covery of Rs. 13 810 from the present respondent/original defendant on the basis of nine pro- notes.

( 4 ) THE appellants who are the original plaintiffs inter alia contended by filing the above suit that they had advanced a sum of Rs. 13 810 to the respondent who is the original de- fendant for his contract work on different dates on the basis of pro-nots. The original defendant had executed nine pro-notes as follows: @@@ -- sr. No. Date Amount -- 1 11 1 0 2 23 200 3 27 400 4 30 1 0 5 5 4 200 6 9 1 655 7 17 1 770 8 26 2 40 9 31 1 545 13 810 -

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs demanded the said

















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