SATISH JAIN Vs. MUKESH JAIN
LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-28
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 11,2012

SATISH JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
MUKESH JAIN Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.