Case Summary
The case involves a partnership firm, M/s. Cochin Drug House, suing Mr. Jose for the recovery of outstanding payments for medicines sold on credit. The defendant argues that the suit is barred by limitation and only a small amount is outstanding.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit for realization of Rs.23,466/- has been dismissed as it was found to be barred by limitation. The defendant is entitled to the costs of the proceedings.
Key Reasoning:
The suit was barred by law of limitation as it was instituted beyond the permitted time frame after the expiry of the credit period.
The suit was barred by law of limitation as it was instituted beyond the permitted time frame after the expiry of the credit period.
Why Defendant Won:
The suit was barred by law of limitation as it was instituted beyond the permitted time frame after the expiry of the credit period.
The suit was barred by law of limitation as it was instituted beyond the permitted time frame after the expiry of the credit period.
Supporting Evidence
It is not in dispute that defendant purchased medicines from plaintiff. However, the suit is instituted on 19.02.2019 ie beyond the period of limitation of 3 years which commenced on 15.01.2016.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M/s. Cochin Drug House
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Jose
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of the reconstituted partnership deed, Copies of the bills from 06.03.2014 to 15.12.2015, Office copy of lawyer notice, Postal receipt, Acknowledgement Card
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Martin Roy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv. S. Shyam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought to recover Rs.23,466/- from the defendant.
Evidence:
Accordingly I have no hesitation to hold that plaintiff is not entitled for any amounts from defendant.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partnership Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the reconstituted partnership deed.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Bills
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copies of bills from 06.03.2014 to 15.12.2015.
Reference:
Ext.A2 series
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Office copy of lawyer notice sent to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Postal receipt related to the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Acknowledgement Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment card related to the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between M/s. Cochin Drug House vs Mr. Jose regarding realization of money.
Case Code Year
Case between M/s. Cochin Drug House vs Mr. Jose regarding realization of money.