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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 85

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
N. Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
Muthammal – Respondent


Advocates:
V.Raghavachari, for Petitioner. R. Yashodavardhan, for Respondent.

Judgment :

This revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, in I.A.No.322 of 1997 in O.S.No.904 of 1995 dated 22. 1997 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for filing additional written statement in the said suit.

2. The said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed on 111. 1992 for a sum of Rs.3,000 with interest thereon. Hence the suit for a total sum of Rs.3,805 was filed as due from the suit promissory note. The petitioner herein filed written statement contending inter alia that he had not executed any promissory note on 111. 1992. and that the suit promissory note has been filed after correcting the month on which the suit promissory had been executed. It is further contended that it was only in January, 1992 the defendant had executed the promissory note in favour of the husband of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,500 and in the written statement certain further details are also given claiming that the amount due under the promissory note has been realised by the plaintiff and that the claim was barred by limitation.

3. The suit was subsequently tak

















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