Skip to content


Dharamsala Lala Reoti Ram Vs. Lachhman Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in89Ind.Cas.402
AppellantDharamsala Lala Reoti Ram
RespondentLachhman Prasad
Cases ReferredGanga Prasad v. Ram Dayal
Excerpt:
acknowledgment, suit whether can be bated on. - .....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.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is a civil revision from a judgment of the Judge of Small Cause Court at Shahjahanpur. The suit as brought was based on a sarkhat. dated the 25th of November 1921. There was no mention of any previous connection between the: parties, nor was there any mention that at stay time account was 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 23 A. 502 : A.W.N. (1901) 150. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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