CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J
SEEMA AGARWAL – Appellant
Versus
ASHOK CHAUDHRY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant claims suit barred by limitation. (Para 2) |
| 2. plaintiff argues for continuous agreements. (Para 3) |
| 3. court observes dismissal not warranted. (Para 4) |
| 4. court dismisses the application. (Para 5) |
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE IA NO. GA 3 of 2025 IN CS NO. 152 of 2024 SEEMA AGARWAL VS ASHOK CHAUDHRY For the Plaintiff : Mr. Varun Kothari, Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Ms. Urvashi Jain, Ms. Sreeja Chakraborty, ...... Advocates For the Defendant : Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Mr. Ayan Dutta, Mr. Bimalendu Das, Ms.ShomritaDas ………Advocates Heard on : 17.07.2025 Judgment on : 17th July, 2025 Arindam Mukherjee, J:
1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) filed by the sole defendant in a suit for recovery of money said to have been lent and advanced. The defendant has attacked the plaint mainly on three following grounds:-
i) According to the averments in the plaint the money provided to the defendant is spread over several years i.e. between 2009 and 2016. The last amount was advanced in 2016. Each disbursement, according to the defendant, amounts to separate transaction and cannot be said to be part of a single
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.