Money Suit No.
The said order for withdrawal and joint trial became final.
Though arguments were addressed on the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent before the Division Bench under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, in which one of us, Balasubramanyan, J. finds companysiderable force companynsel for the appellant fairly brought to our numberice the decision in Liverpool London S.P. I Association Ltd. Vs.
5 lakhs had been lent by her to the respondent and the same had number been repaid and the same was liable to be repaid with interest and damages.
Their claims were based on transactions they allegedly had with the respondent herein, through Mahendra Kumar Nahata, the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2.
10,93,863/ with interest thereon and appellant No.
Arising out of SLP C No.23272 of 2005 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
29 of 2003.
585 of 2001 was instituted by the respondent against appellant No.
The respondent had earlier filed two suits for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the appellants.
1 was that a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/ each paid by them to the respondent were by way of loans.
The suits were filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
2 herein claiming recovery of certain amounts after setting off the amount of Rs.
2 was also that she had lent a sum of Rs.
10 of 2003 on the original side of the Calcutta High Court invoking clause 13 of the Letters Patent read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code seeking withdrawal of Money Suit No.
The respondent number having repaid the money and having repudiated their claim by filing suits against them, the suit for recovery of the amounts was being filed.
Their suit, as numbericed, was on the basis that the sums of Rs.
585 of 2001 and Money Suit No.
69 of 2002 for being tried with C.S. No.
5 lakhs to the respondent and the same along with interest and damages was due to her.
The respondent had also filed Money Suit No.
Aggrieved by this decision of the Division Bench this appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.
The case of appellant No.
The said suits were pending when the appellants together instituted their suit C.S. No.
69 of 2002 against appellant No.1 herein for recovery of certain amounts on the same basis and after setting off the sum of Rs.5 lakhs alleged to have been paid by her.
5 lakhs taken from appellant No.
He had accepted that Rs.
Though the respondent resisted the application, the companyrt took the view that it would be appropriate in the interests of justice to transfer the two suits pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta to the original side of the High Court for being tried and disposed of along with C.S. No.
5 lakhs had been paid by the appellant but pleaded that it was number a loan, but it was as part of a business transaction set out in that plaint.
They had averred thus in paragraph 4 of the plaint The said Nahata in his usual companyrse of business was known to the Defendant for many years and sometime in April, 2000 while acting on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the said Nahata at the request of Defendant had duly arranged for two loans of Rs.5,00,000/ to be lent and advanced by each of the Plaintiffs to the Defendant and this Suit has been brought to recover the said loans with interest and special damages arising from the Defendants failure to repay the said loans within the stipulated date therefor as is stated more fully hereinafter.
They together sued the respondent, the defendant, for recovery of sums allegedly due to them from him.
29 of 2003 filed by the appellants.
2 sought recovery of a sum of Rs.10,90,849/ with interest.
It was their case that the transactions had been entered into through Mahendra Kumar Nahata, and that through Nahata, they have had prior dealings with the respondent.
They are mother and daughter.
29 of 2003 filed on the original side of the Calcutta High Court.
The appellants are the plaintiffs in C.S. No.
The appellants moved A.L.P. No.
In essence, the claim of appellant No.
