Skip to content


N.H. Moos Vs. Gulamali Tyabali Soni - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1930Bom152; 125Ind.Cas.441
AppellantN.H. Moos
RespondentGulamali Tyabali Soni
Excerpt:
costs - failure, to disclose evidence to other party before suit, whether ground for depriving a party of costs. - - after the suit was filed the defendants gave inspection of the receipt in their possession to the plaintiff's attorneys and otherwise satisfied the plaintiff's attorneys that they had paid the amount to the estate represented by the plaintiff......and to produce the receipt for his inspection. the defendants sent no reply to these letters. this suit was filed after the plaintiff's attorneys had addressed their notice to the defendants dated february 19, 1926, and their further notice dated march 25, 1926, demanding payment of the amount and threatening to file a suit to enforce the demand if not complied with. no reply having been received to either letter the present suit was filed against the defendants. after the suit was filed the defendants gave inspection of the receipt in their possession to the plaintiff's attorneys and otherwise satisfied the plaintiff's attorneys that they had paid the amount to the estate represented by the plaintiff. the plaintiff's attorneys informed the defendants that they would not proceed with the.....
Judgment:

Mirza, J.

1. The plaintiff as receiver in Suit No. 3012 of 1925 addressed a letter to the defendants on January 8, 1926, demanding from them a sum of Rs. 2,100 as due by the defendants to the said estate. By their Pleader's letter dated January 13, 1926, the defendants replied that the sum of Rs. 2,100 had been paid by them with interest and that they got back the receipt which they had passed in respect of that amount. The plaintiff from time to time called upon the defendants to let him know to what person they had paid the said amount and to produce the receipt for his inspection. The defendants sent no reply to these letters. This suit was filed after the plaintiff's Attorneys had addressed their notice to the defendants dated February 19, 1926, and their further notice dated March 25, 1926, demanding payment of the amount and threatening to file a suit to enforce the demand if not complied with. No reply having been received to either letter the present suit was filed against the defendants. After the suit was filed the defendants gave inspection of the receipt in their possession to the plaintiff's Attorneys and otherwise satisfied the plaintiff's Attorneys that they had paid the amount to the estate represented by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's Attorneys informed the defendants that they would not proceed with the case against them except to ask for costs and required that the defendants should not incur any costs beyond those necessary to oppose such application. The defendants have complied with that condition.

2. The plaintiff does not now wish to proceed with the suit and the only question which the Court has to determine is as to costs. I am of opinion that defendants were under no obligation to disclose to the plaintiff the evidence by which: they proposed to substantiate the defence which they had set out in their Pleader's reply to the plaintiff's first notice. The suit must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //