Skip to content

Kshitish Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Umed Mondal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal338
AppellantKshitish Chandra Das and ors.
RespondentUmed Mondal
- .....view, the case must go back to be dealt with afresh. costs of this rule will abide the result. we assess the hearing-fee at one gold.....

1. We think this Rule succeeds to this extent that the case must go baek to the Small Cause Court to be dealt with on the footing that the Mablakbandi is a good acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, will preserve any debt due which was not; at that time barred by limitation. But, in dealing with this matter, the learned Judge must also proceed upon the view that the Mablakbandi is not a promise to pay under Section 25 of the Contract Act so as to revive any debt, which was barred at the date of the Mablakbandi. The view taken by the learned Judge to the effect that the plaint was presented one day out of time is also negative. From that point of view, the case must go back to be dealt with afresh. Costs of this Rule will abide the result. We assess the hearing-fee at one gold mohur.

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