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

2001 Supreme(AP) 1343

S.ANANDA REDDY
Venkayala Bhadram – Appellant
Versus
Noni Venkata Rao – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 51 of 1996 aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit as barred by limitation.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1376/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 7-8-1993 executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 800/- repayable with interest at rs. 2-00 per month and for subsequent interest and costs. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff on 7-8-1996.

( 3 ) ONE of the contentions advanced by the Defendant was that the suit is barred by limitation. In fact, in the written statement the defendant contended that he has paid the amount at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month towards penal interest and another sum of rs. 400/- during Dasara 1995 towards principal and therefore contended that he had discharged the promissory note executed by him in favour of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE Court below without deciding the genuinenss or otherwise of the claim of the defendant with reference to the payments made, though in fact such payments were denied by the plaintiff, but proceeded to decide the issue as to the limitation raised by the d







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