In an application seeking leave to sue for recovery of money on a promissory note, the court found it unnecessary as both parties and the execution location were within jurisdiction.
Application dismissed as wholly unnecessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Application No. 5157 of 2015
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU.,J.
This application is filed for grant of leave to the applicant to sue the respondent before this Court.
2
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU.,J.
Vsi/rms
recovery of money on promisory note which is admittedly said to have been executed within the jurisdiction of this Court and when the respondent/ defendant is also residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, I find that the present application filed is wholly unnecessary. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as not necessary.
05.08.2015
vsi/rms
Application No. 5157 of 2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to sue is necessary when defendant resides and executed the promissory note within the court's jurisdiction.
Ravichandrababu
Respondent
K.Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
