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

1983 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22

KERALA HIGH COURT
A, J
MOOKAN DEVASSY OUSEPH AND SONS v. RAJAPPAN PILLAI


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Unknown
For the Respondents: Unknown

1.The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision filed by the plaintiff in a suit on accounts is: What is the condition which should be satisfied so that the period of pendency of a suit filed in a court which had no jurisdiction to try the same can be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the suit? If the plaintiff did not act with due care and attention and filed the suit in a wrong court can he take shelter under S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?

2. The plaintiff, a partnership doing business, had a petrol bunk at Parur within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Parur. The defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor purchased petrol and oil from the hunk. As per the accounts kept by the plaintiffs at their head office at Mattancherry some amounts were due from the defendant. For that a suit was instituted before the Munsiff's Court, Cochin. After trial, the Munsiffs Court, Cochin found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint for presentation before the proper court. The plaint was taken back and then filed before the Munsiff's Court, Parur. That court held that















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