Full physical source page · unreviewed extraction

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: page 255

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, India Code delivered snapshot 393b8848fdfc476a, physical page 255, typed edition 77428589d4e341672ed6a3e5f663be7dec530c42d0600064ac1314302939267d. Unreviewed extraction.

Source: official India Code PDF · catalog record. Fetched 2026-10-19T23:06:46Z. SHA-256 393b8848fdfc476a21cc3abf4f0d3f510557e2dff6fc6914b1f379bea1730614.

Legal currency, territorial applicability and extraction fidelity are unverified. Catalog checksum/size differs from the delivered PDF; both identities are retained. Sections, state notes and footnotes share these physical pages. Compare the full original image.

Retained layout text

    2. As to the whole [or as to Rs...................... , part of the money claimed] the defendant made tender
before suit of Rs.........and has paid the same into Court.
                                                      No. 5
                     DEFENCE IN SUITS FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT DRIVING
    1. The defendant denies that the carries mentioned in the plaint was the defendant ’s
carriage, and that it was under the charge or control of the defendant ’s servants. The carriage
belonged to....................... of.....................Street, Calcutta, livery stable keepers employed by the
defendant to supply him with carriages and horses; and the person under whose charge and control the
said carriage was, was the servant of the said.
    2. The defendant does not admit that the said carriage was turned out of Middleton Street either
negligently, suddenly or without warning, or at a rapid or dangerous pace.
   3. The defendant says the plaintiff might and could, by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence,
have seen the said carriage approaching him, and avoided any collision with it.
    4. The defendant does not admit the statements contained in the third paragraph of the plaint.
                                                      No. 6
                                     DEFENCE IN ALL SUITS FOR WRONGS   e
    1. Denial of the several acts [or matters] complained of.
                                                  No. 7
                                                                 od
                                                            aC
                              DEFENCE IN ALL SUITS FOR DETENTION OF GOODS
                                                       di
    1. The goods were not the property of the plaintiff.
                                                  In
    2. The good were detained for a lien to which the defendant was entitled.
    Particulars are as follows:—
    1907, May 3rd To carriage of the goods claimed from Delhi to Calcutta:—
    45 maunds at Rs. 2 per maund.................Rs. 90.
                                                      No. 8
                            DEFENCE IN SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
    1. The plaintiff is not the author [assignee, etc.]
    2. The book was not registered.
    3. The defendant did not infringe.
                                                      No. 9
                           DEFENCE IN SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF TRADE MARK
    1. The trade mark is not the plaintiff’s.
    2. The alleged trade mark is not a trade mark.
    3. The defendant did not infringe.
                                                      No. 10
                                 DEFENCE IN SUITS RELATING TO NUISANCES
    1. The plaintiff’s lights are not ancient [or deny his other alleged prescriptive rights.]
    2. The plaintiff’s lights will not be materially interfered with by the defendant’s buildings.
    3. The defendant denies that he or his servants pollute the water [or do what is complained of].




                                                          255

Compare original page image