Case Summary
The case involves a petition filed by the defendants contesting the maintainability of a suit for recovery of a loan amount due to limitation issues. The plaintiffs, Central Bank of India, filed the suit seeking recovery of a sum allegedly arising from a loan agreement.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition challenging the maintainability of the suit based on limitation.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the question of limitation involves factual aspects that require evidence.
The court found that the question of limitation involves factual aspects that require evidence.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the question of limitation involves factual aspects that require evidence.
The court found that the question of limitation involves factual aspects that require evidence.
Supporting Evidence
However, in the present case, the question of limitation would depend upon proof of other factual aspects including the question whether the part payment was in fact made by the defendants on 17.03.2018.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Central Bank of India
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Martin P.J
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Amal Joseph
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Joe Paul
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Keerthi Devi K.V
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ashly Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M.R.Harikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sajitha S Dharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anand Sankar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petition sought to hear the question of limitation and maintainability of the suit.
Evidence:
Therefore, the said question cannot be considered as an issue of law alone, which could be heard as a preliminary issue and a decision as to the same to be made at this stage.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Loan Agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The loan agreement dated 02.07.2012 forms the basis of the plaintiff's claim for recovery.
Reference:
null
Document Type:
Account Statement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The account statement was produced to show part payment made by the defendant.
Reference:
null
Document Type:
Amendment Application
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This application sought to amend the date of the alleged part payment made by the defendant.
Reference:
IA No. 4 of 2024
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Oral evidence
Relevance:
Testimonies regarding the existence of the loan and part payments.
Reference:
null
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Central Bank of India vs Martin P.J et al regarding loan agreement and limitation.
Case Code Year
Case between Central Bank of India vs Martin P.J et al regarding loan agreement and limitation.