Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    Exercise No. 1

    Uploaded by

    jithin
    (1) Raghavendra filed a civil suit against Ramesh Kumar in the District Court of Bangalore. (2) Raghavendra alleges that on July 25, 2016, Ramesh borrowed Rs. 50,000 from him and executed a promissory note but has failed to repay the debt despite demands. (3) Raghavendra is seeking a judgement directing Ramesh to pay back the Rs. 50,000 plus interest and costs from the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Exercise No. 1

    Uploaded by

    jithin
    84 views2 pages
    (1) Raghavendra filed a civil suit against Ramesh Kumar in the District Court of Bangalore. (2) Raghavendra alleges that on July 25, 2016, Ramesh borrowed Rs. 50,000 from him and executed a promissory note but has failed to repay the debt despite demands. (3) Raghavendra is seeking a judgement directing Ramesh to pay back the Rs. 50,000 plus interest and costs from the court.

    Original Description:

    Plaint under order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Raghavendra filed a civil suit against Ramesh Kumar in the District Court of Bangalore. (2) Raghavendra alleges that on July 25, 2016, Ramesh borrowed Rs. 50,000 from him and executed a promissory note but has failed to repay the debt despite demands. (3) Raghavendra is seeking a judgement directing Ramesh to pay back the Rs. 50,000 plus interest and costs from the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    84 views2 pages

    Exercise No. 1

    Uploaded by

    jithin
    (1) Raghavendra filed a civil suit against Ramesh Kumar in the District Court of Bangalore. (2) Raghavendra alleges that on July 25, 2016, Ramesh borrowed Rs. 50,000 from him and executed a promissory note but has failed to repay the debt despite demands. (3) Raghavendra is seeking a judgement directing Ramesh to pay back the Rs. 50,000 plus interest and costs from the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EXERCISE NO.

    1
    IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE OF BANGALORE

    CIVIL SUIT NO. ……. OF 2016


    DATE OF INSTITUTION – 25/07/2016

    Plaint under order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908

    Raghavendra
    S/O Venkatesh
    Aged about 60 years
    Residing at Venkatalla
    8th Cross Road
    Yelahanka
    Bangalore …….Plaintiff

    Versus

    Ramesh Kumar
    S/O Rajesh
    Aged about 40 years
    Residing at Venkatalla
    4th Cross Road
    Yelahanka
    Bangalore ……. Defendant

    Plaint filed on behalf of the plaintiff under order VII Rule-10 and long cause title.

    (1) Plaintiff
    Raghavendra, S/O Venkatesh, Resident of Venkatalla, 8th Cross road, Yelahanka,
    Bangalore, within jurisdiction of this honourable court.
    The address for services of notices etc. on the plaintiff is as stated above and come of ………………
    advocate, Bangalore.

    (2) Defendant
    Ramesh Kumar, S/O Rajesh, Resident of Venkatalla, 4th Cross Road, Yelahanka,
    Bangalore, within jurisdiction of this honourable court.
    The address for service of process etc. on the defendant as stated above.

    Plaintiff begs to state as follows:


    Suit for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/-
    Plaint under order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as mentioned in the suit.

    Respectfully Sheweth:
    1. Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 25/07/2016 and is consideration there of
    executed a promissory note the like sum in favour of the plaintiff.
    2. The plaintiff made several demands on the defendant for the repayment of the debt. The
    plaintiff also caused a registered lawyer‟s notice dated 04/11/2016 to be sent to the
    defendant did not respond.
    3. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to the
    benefits under any of the debt relief of law.
    4. Cause of Action: For this suit arose on 25/07/2016 at Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of
    this honourable court.
    5. The plaintiff values this suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of Rs. 39,000/- and
    pays a court fee and suits valuation Act.

    Prayer
    1. It is therefore, prayed that the honourable court may be pleaded to pass a judgement and
    decree against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
    2. Directing the plaint defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.50,000/- on with further
    interest at the contact rate till the date of realization.
    3. Awarding the plaintiff the cost of this suit.
    4. Passing such further or other order as the honourable court may deem. Fit and proper in the
    circumstance of the case.

    ………………. Advocate for the plaintiff ………………………..Plaintiff

    VERIFICATION
    I the plaintiff do hereby verify that the contents of the above plaint from paragraphs 1 to 5 are
    true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and nothing
    material has been concealed therein.

    List of document filed:


    (1) Documents original promissory note executed by the defendant.
    (2) Special plaints in suits by a licensor against his licensee by a notice as per the licence agreement.

    You might also like