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

2014 Supreme(Raj) 1982

ARUN BHANSALI
Babulal – Appellant
Versus
Kanhiyalal – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Lalit Pareek, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Harish Jangid, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the respondents under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1964 ('the Limitation Act') read with Section 22C(2) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ('the Act of 1987') has been ordered to be decided along with other issues and application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC seeking decision of the issue relating to limitation as preliminary issue has been rejected.

2. Facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondent plaintiff filed an application for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,04,000/- before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Nathdwara; the proceedings came to be terminated by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 20.03.2009 on noticing that the petitioner herein was not interested in disposal of the matter by the said forum; where after, the present suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,48,000/-; along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 6 of the Limitation Act read with Section 22C(2) of the Act of 1987 seeking condonation of dela


















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