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

2004 Supreme(MP) 507

S.K.PANDE
Dhannalal – Appellant
Versus
Dharamlal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Amit Jain, K.K.GAUTAM,

Judgment

( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the judgment-decree dated 10-9-2003, passed by ADJ, Khurai, in C. A. No. 5-B/2002.

( 2. ) PLAINTIFF/petitioner instituted C. S. No. 19-B/2002 before Civil Judge Class I, Khurai for recovery of Rs. 23,000/- together with interest from the defendant/respondent on the ground that on 2-12-97, the aforesaid amount was deposited by him with the defendant/respondent. On demand, the defendant/respondent failed to refund the same. The suit aforesaid has been resisted by the defendant/respondent stating inter alia that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is false as no amount was ever been deposited with him and the agreement dated 2-12-97 was never executed between the parties. The Civil Judge accepting the contention of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment dated 31-7-2002 in C. S. No. 19-B/2002 held that the defendant/respondent obtained the amount aforesaid from the plaintiff/petitioner and the agreement (Exhibit P-1) accordingly was executed and signed. On demand, the defendant/respondent failed to return the amount. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 23,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12%





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