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

G.D.SAXENA
Nandlal – Appellant
Versus
Sureshchand Rathi – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashish Shrivastava and Mr. Anil Shrivastava, adv
For the Respondent: Ankur Maheshwari, adv

JUDGMENT :

G.D. Saxena, J.

This appeal u/s 96 of the CPC 1908 has been preferred by the defendant/appellant against a judgment and decree dated 18th August 2010 rendered in Civil Suit No. 14B/2008 by the District Judge Shivpuri (M.P.) thereby decreeing the suit against him for recovery of Rs. 60,870/- with 6% simple interest as well as costs of the suit proceedings. Brief facts of the case are that on 26th April 2007, the plaintiff/respondent advanced loan of Rs. 51,500/- with monthly interest @ 1% to the defendant/appellant for his agricultural and personal use. For satisfaction of the debts, the defendant executed a promissory note in the presence of the two witnesses in favour of the plaintiff/creditor. It is stated that after repeated oral demands/requests and even on notice when the debtor/defendant did not return the advanced loan amount and accrued interest, the creditor/plaintiff instituted a suit against him for recovery. The defendant/appellant by submitting the written-statement denied the averments of the plaint. He further denied of taking the amount of Rs. 51,500/- against loan for his agricultural and personal use for which the alleged promissory note was executed by h

























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