Scribd
Upload
152 views3 pages

DPC Assignment 5

This document is a regular first appeal submitted to the Bombay High Court against a judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Nasik. [1] The original plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 50,000 owed under a promissory note. [2] The trial court judge passed a decree of Rs. 60,000 against the appellant. [3] The appellant argues that the promissory note was invalid and no consideration was provided, and the handwriting expert was not called. [4] The appellant requests that the High Court set aside the trial court's decree and judgment.

Uploaded by

Mouneesh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
152 views3 pages

DPC Assignment 5

This document is a regular first appeal submitted to the Bombay High Court against a judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Nasik. [1] The original plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 50,000 owed under a promissory note. [2] The trial court judge passed a decree of Rs. 60,000 against the appellant. [3] The appellant argues that the promissory note was invalid and no consideration was provided, and the handwriting expert was not called. [4] The appellant requests that the High Court set aside the trial court's decree and judgment.

Uploaded by

Mouneesh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Regular first Appeal

SUBMITTED BY:

S Mouneesh (17040142015).

BBA.LLB(HONS)2017-22

SUBMITTED TO:

Prof. HEENA GHANSHAYAM PATOLI

Alliance School of Law

Alliance University, Bangalore


IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Under civil appellant jurisdiction

Appeal No.......of 2019

In

Suit No. 37 of 2018 from the court of Civil Judge, S.D., Nasik.

Balan Appellant (Original Defendant)

Vs

Kumar Respondent (Original Plaintiff)

Appeal against judgement and decree passed by

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik on 11-03-2019

In suit No. 37of 2018.

The appellant most respectfully sheweth that:

1. The respondent has filed the suit No. 37 of 2018 in the court of civil judge senior
division, Nasik, against the appellant for recovery of Rs.50,000 which sum the
applicant allegedly owed to the respondent against a promissory note executed by the
applicant in favour of respondent.
2. The learned Judge heard the said suit and passed a decree of Rs.60,000 against the
appellant on the 11th day of March, 2019.
3. The appellant being aggrieved by the said decree and the judgement prefers this
appeal on the following amongst others grounds:
I. That the learned Judge erred in holding that the promissory note was
legally valid.
II. That the promissory note was invalid and hence not enforceable against
the appellant under the promissory note.
III. Thus no consideration has been passed from the respondent to the
appellant under the promissory note.
IV. That the learned Judge erred in holding that the promissory note was
executed by the appellant.
V. That the hand-writing expert was not called in the spite of the repeated
request from the appellant
VI. That the learned Judge erred in not appreciating the evidence of the
appellant (defendant) and his witnesses.
VII. That the decision of the learned judge is against the weight of the evidence
in the case, and the learned Judge is ought to have dismissed the plaintiffs
suit.
VIII. That the decision of the trail court is against justice, equity and good
consciences and hence not sustainable.
4. The appellant has not filled any other appeal prior to this in Hon’ble court.
5. The appellant, therefore, submits that the Honourable court be pleased to send for the
records of the suit from the trail court and set aside the decree and the judgement of
the trail court.
6. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this appeal, the respondent be restrained by
an order of the Hon’ble court from executing the aforesaid decree against the 08 th day
of may 2019.

Advocate for the appellant.

At Bombay

You might also like