ABDUR RAHMAN
Ramachandra Madhavadoss Co. by partner K. Raghunatha Mallayya – Appellant
Versus
Moovakat Moidunkutti Birankutti and Brothers – Respondent
Abdur Rahman, J.
1. The only question which I have been called upon to decide in this revision relates to the correctness of the order passed by the District Munsif of Mangalore who, in view of an objection raised on behalf of the defendant, refused to entertain the suit on the ground that being one for accounts it was barred under Article 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
2. The suit was, as the plaint would show, for a specific sum of money which was alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant in regard to certain dealings mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The District Munsif examined the plaintiff and finding that four heads of accounts were clubbed together in a single katha maintained by the plaintiff firm in its books, out of which two only could be properly recovered on the Small Cause Side, returned the whole plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
3. Having heard the Counsel for the parties at some length, I am clearly of the opinion that this is not a suit for accounts within the meaning of Article 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is, as framed, maintainable by the Court of Small Causes. " A
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.