Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/193219/1990 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1932 of 1990
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
UMAKANT
N BHAGAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
BHAGAT
BROTHERS & 5 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HJ BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,3 - 4.
MR
RN SHAH for Defendant(s) : 2,5 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 11/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th
December, 1989, passed by the learned City Civil Court, in Civil Suit
No. 4047 of 1987, whereby the said suit is dismissed.
2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-
2.1. The
appellant-original plaintiff was a partner in the partnership firm of
the respondents-original defendants. It is the case of the appellant
that the appellant along with three other partners retired from the
partnership firm and the necessary documents came to be executed on
13th November, 1980. It is further the case of the that if
the respondents did not pay the amount due to his account within one
year then the respondents had to pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum on the said amount. Since the respondents did not paid the said
amount due to the appellant, the appellant filed a suit being Civil
Suit No. 4047 of 1987 before the learned City Civil Court, for decree
in the sum of Rs.78,430.56 with interest at the rate of 12% from the
date of suit till payment.
2.2. The
learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the
evidence on record, dismissed the said Suit. Hence, this appeal.
3.0. Heard
learned counsel for the parties. Upon perusal of the evidence on
record, it is evident that the deed of date of retirement is 7th
November, 1980 and the period of limitation for the recovery of such
debt is admittedly three years and the same would expire on 6th
November, 1983. However, the extract of account at Exh. 60 is dated
23rd January, 1984, which is after the expiration of the
period of limitation on 6th November, 1983. Hence, suit is
barred by the law of limitation.
4.0.
In view of the above, in my opinion,
the impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and
proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top