9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iles by the 3rs defendant challenging the judgement and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Hanagal, decreeing the suit O.S. 728/02 filed by the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts necessary for consideration are: a) Plaintiff who is partner of a rice industry called Kashmiri Rice Industries established at Hanagal, had entered into a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the trial court committed an error in trying issue nos.2 and 3 as preliminary issue, without recording any evidence and without giving any opportunity to the defendant to contest the suit. It is to be noted that issue nos.2 and 3 read as follows: Issue no.2: Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of section 69 of the India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under the Act, the trial court held that the suit is maintainable as the firm is registered. 5. In our view, it is not necessary when there was sufficient documentary evidence acceptable to record evidence in this regard as long as the defendant has not rebutted it or challenged the same either by way of revision or first appeal before the higher forum. No doubt it is contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resides or where the cause of action arose, either wholly or in part. Undisputedly, the present transaction arose at Hanagal and as such, the court at Hanagal was justified in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff at Hanagal was maintainable and in our view, justified. 7. The last contention canvassed is in respect of levy of interest at 18% p.a. Admittedly, this is a commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
