SATISH JAIN Vs. MUKESH JAIN
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) HEARD Sri A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri B.P.
Nautiyal, Senior Advocate along with Sri Manokam Nautiyal, Counsel for
respondent on restoration application.
(2.) THE reasons shown are sufficient. The restoration application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. Also
heard on merit of the case.
(3.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 23 -1 -20 10
and 12 -1 -2011, passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun and
1st Additional District Judge/5th F.T.C. Dehradun respectively, contained as Annexure Nos. 6 and 8 to the writ petition.
The facts of the case, in short, are that a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 77,125/ - was filed by plaintiff/respondent against
the defendant/petitioner. Instead of filing the W.S. the defendant filed
application 105 -C/2, U/O 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for return of the plaint on the
ground that the suit is barred by limitation. Objection was filed against
the application 105 -C/2. By the impugned order dated 23 -1 -2010, the 1st
Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) has rejected the application 105 -C/2 filed U/O
7, Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of Section - 18 of the Limitation Act. The revision preferred
before the 1st Addl. District Judge/5th F.T.C. Dehradun too was dismissed
on the same ground.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.