CHELARAM ASANDAS NAINANI Vs. MANOHAR PANDURANG SANGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Though in spite of being duly served with the notice for final disposal, the respondent has neither appeared in person nor he has engaged the services of the Counsel.

(2.) The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent/defendant was purchasing cloth on credit from the plaintiff shop and that an amount of Rs.33,000/- was due from the respondent/plaintiff. However, since the pecuniar jurisdiction of the Court was only up to Rs.25,000/-, the petitioner/plaintiff restricted his claim only to Rs.25,000/-.

(3.) In the written statement, it is admitted by the respondent/defendant that the defendant used to purchase the cloth from the plaintiff. However, in so far as the quantum of the amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is concerned, the said fact is disputed by the defendant.