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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 45

THANIKKACHALAM
Canara Bank, Kovilpatti Branch represented by its Manager – Appellant
Versus
P. Kannan and Another – Respondent


Advocates:
V.R. Venkatachalam, for T.Raghavan, for Petitioner. T. Ravikumar, for Respondents.

Judgment :

This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif’s Court, Kovilpatti, dated 13. 1987. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff filed a plaint under O.7, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code to recover a sum of Rs.1,455.76 with future interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum and for costs. This plaint was returned with the direction to State as to how the suit is not barred by limitation. The plaintiff complied with the returns. The plaint was admitted only against the 2nd defendant and not aganist the 1st defendant. For necessary amendment the plaint was returned. As against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. In the revision the defendants were shown as respondents. The first defendant is the principal debtor and the second defendant is the surety. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff, the suit filed is within time because the debt was acknowledged by the 2nd defendant on 19. 1983 and on 9. 1986. The suit was filed on 29. 1986. In order to support this contention, reliance was placed upon an agreement executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank. I






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