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

1983 Supreme(Ori) 103

P.C.MISRA
KANKALA GURUNATH PATRO – Appellant
Versus
D. DHANU PATRO – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.B.RATHO, B.L.N.SWAMY, B.R.RAO, S.K.DAS

P. C. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant in a confirming judgment.

( 2 ) THE suit is based on a promissory note. The plaintiff's case is that on 1-4-71, the defendant took a loan of Rupees 3,000/- executing a promissory note in favour, of the plaintiff agreeing to. pay an interest of 12 per cent per annum. As no part of the loan or the interest accruing thereon was repaid by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of his dues.

( 3 ) THE defendant's case, in short, was that he had paid back the loan together with interest as agreed to in presence of several gentlemen and the plaintiff did not return the promissory note on some plea or other. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of the said promissory note. The defendant also took a plea that the suit is barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, negatived the plea of payment by the defendant and decreed the suit with costs. The plea of limitation raised by the defendant was not accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge who found that the suit has been filed within the period of limitation.

(







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