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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 91

ABDUR RAHMAN
Ramachandra Madhavadoss Co. by partner K. Raghunatha Mallayya – Appellant
Versus
Moovakat Moidunkutti Birankutti and Brothers – Respondent


JUDGMENT

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






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