Skip to content


Prasanna Kumar Chanda Vs. Kuladhar Rakshit, Minor, by Babu Tara Prasanna Bose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in57Ind.Cas.252
AppellantPrasanna Kumar Chanda
RespondentKuladhar Rakshit, Minor, by Babu Tara Prasanna Bose
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 11 - res judicata between co-defendants--ex parte decree, effect of. - .....and the father of the defendant in this suit were jointly liable under a bond to one chandra kanta. chandra kanta sued on that bond and obtained a decree against the plaintiff and the defendant. the full decretal amount was realized from the plaintiff and be brought this suit for contribution claiming half the amount from the defendant. the suit has been dismissed on the finding that the defendant's half share of the debt had been discharged by payment of rs. 200 made before chandra kanta's suit was instituted. it is contended that as the decree declared the defendant's liability, he could not raise the plea that he was not liable. i am unable to see that an ex parte decree obtained against two joint debtors operates as res judicata as between those two debtors, when the question.....
Judgment:

Newbould, J.

1. The plaintiff and the father of the defendant in this suit were jointly liable under a bond to one Chandra Kanta. Chandra Kanta sued on that bond and obtained a decree against the plaintiff and the defendant. The full decretal amount was realized from the plaintiff and be brought this suit for contribution claiming half the amount from the defendant. The suit has been dismissed on the finding that the defendant's half share of the debt had been discharged by payment of Rs. 200 made before Chandra Kanta's suit was instituted. It is contended that as the decree declared the defendant's liability, he could not raise the plea that he was not liable. I am unable to see that an ex parte decree obtained against two joint debtors operates as res judicata as between those two debtors, when the Question of their respective liability is raised in a contribution suit. I would further bold that on the finding of fact, the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge is just. The ease, even if I held there was an error of law, is not one in which I ought to interfere Under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The Rule is discharged with costs, hearing fee two gold mohurs.


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