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

2010 Supreme(MP) 682

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, BRIJ KISHORE DUBE
Khamir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Hadheshyam Bansal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.D. Bansal for petitioner;
Jitendra Sharma for respondent.

ORDER

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 4-B/2009 dismissing two applications filed by the defendant/petitioner-one under section 11 of the Stamps Act read with Rules 15 and 17 of the M.P. Stamp Rules and another under Order XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 of CPC, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts is required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, suffice it to say that a suit on the basis of promissory note executed by defendant/petitioner in favour of plaintiff/respondent has been filed for relisation of a sum of Rs.41,000/-. According to the plaint averments, the defendants/petitioner executed a promissory note on 15.3.2006 for Rs.30,000/- in favour of plaintift7respondent and took loan amount of Rs. 30,000/

It was agreed between the parties that the said amount will be paid alongwith interest at the rate of two percent per annum whenever the demand is made by the plaintiff. Since the amount of promissory note was not paid, hence, the plaintiff after giv



































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