Dismissed

Smt. Sitabai S. Jadhav and Ors. v. M/S. Dalichand Rajmal and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2007SA/1346/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal concerning a suit, the High Court dismissed the appeal summarily. The court held that below courts correctly relied on deposition to save the bar of limitation and found no substantial question of law under CPC Section 100 to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed summarily with no reappreciation of evidence.

Smt. Sitabai S. Jadhav and Ors. Vs M/S. Dalichand Rajmal… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

 Second Appeal No.1346 of 2005

¶3

 1. Smt.Sitabai Shriram Jadhav

¶4

 and others ..Appellants

¶5

vs.

¶6

 1. M/s Dalichand Rajmal & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

 Shri R.A.Thorat for appellants.

¶8

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.
18th July, 2007

¶9

P.C.

¶10

 1. The only contention raised by Shri Thorat appearing

¶11

 for the appellant is that the suit claim was barred by law
 of limitation in as much as the Ruju Chitti Exh.37 could
 not be relied upon to save the bar of limitation. The
 submission is that payment made on 7th July, 1980 cannot
 save the bar of limitation in as much as the amount of
 loan advanced in 1974 ought to have been recovered by
 filing the suit in the year 1977 and Ruju Chitti of 1980
 and filing of the suit on 6th July, 1983 can hardly be
 said to be facts saving the bar of limitation.

¶12

 2. It is not possible to agree with this contention in as
 much as the Courts below have concurrently observed that

¶13

 the deposition so also the accounts which have been placed
 on record point out that some amount was paid on 10th

¶14

 June, 1974. Therefore, this fact coupled with the Ruju
 Chitti can safely be relied upon to save the bar of
 limitation and that is what is precisely done by the
 Courts below.

¶15

 3. In my view the concurrent findings of fact are
 consistent with the oral and documentary evidence on
 record. It is not a court of further appeal so as to
 permit reappreciation of these materials under sec.100 of
 the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of

¶16

 law is raised. The second appeal is dismissed summarily.

¶17

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Smt. Sitabai S. Jadhav and Ors. v. M/S. Dalichand Rajmal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sitabai S. Jadhav and Ors. v. M/S. Dalichand Rajmal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinshaw J. Mahudawala and 5 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Jamshed N. Guzdar and Ors. Vs Dina Eruch Talati and Anr.

Atiquor Rehman Niyaz Shah and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Rajaram Krishna Kadam Vs Sundarabai Dattatray Kokate and Ors.

Shivaji Limbaji Jadhav Vs Pandharpur Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

M/S. Kushal Construction Vs Gunvant Ramlal Shah and Ors.