Skip to content


Reoti Ram Vs. Lachman Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All155
AppellantReoti Ram
RespondentLachman Prasad
Excerpt:
- .....a mere acknowledgment of a liability. it cannot be made the basis of a suit so as to constitute a fresh cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. the plaintiff, of course, if he had chosen could have fallen back on the original consideration, and relied on the sarkhat as a piece of evidence in proof of the debt, but the date of the debt was unknown and it was not known whether the sarkhat was executed within the period of limitation or not. the learned judge remarked that no such debt had been shown to have been acknowledged therein within limitation. the way in which the plaint was drafted and the refusal to lead any evidence by the plaintiff must entail the dismissal of the suit. the view of the court below is supported by the authority of the case of ganga prasad v. ram dayal (1901).....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is a civil revision from a judgment of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Shahjahanpur. The suit as brought was based on a sarkhat dated 25th November 1921. There was no mention of any previous connexion between the parties, nor wag there any mention that at any time account wag adjusted, balance struck or account stated. The plaintiff relied entirely on the sarkhat by saying that the defendant having acknowledged liability and undertaken it had executed the sarkhat. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint was the date of the sarkhat. When the trial commenced the counsel for both the parties declined to lead any evidence each thinking that the burden lay on the opposite side. The Court accordingly heard arguments and dismissed the suit.

2. I am of opinion that it is impossible to interfere with this order. The sarkhat was not a promissory note but a mere acknowledgment of a liability. It cannot be made the basis of a suit so as to constitute a fresh cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, of course, if he had chosen could have fallen back on the original consideration, and relied on the sarkhat as a piece of evidence in proof of the debt, but the date of the debt was unknown and it was not known whether the sarkhat was executed within the period of limitation or not. The learned Judge remarked that no such debt had been shown to have been acknowledged therein within limitation. The way in which the plaint was drafted and the refusal to lead any evidence by the plaintiff must entail the dismissal of the suit. The view of the Court below is supported by the authority of the case of Ganga Prasad v. Ram Dayal (1901) 23 All 502. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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