Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In The City Civil Court
In The City Civil Court
At Jodhpur
In The Matter Of
v.
Mansukh Sardesai-------------------------------------------------------------------Defendant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. Index Of Authorities IV
3. Statement Of Jurisdiction V
4. Statement Of Facts VI
8. Prayer 5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3. Ed. Editor
4. ed. Edition
5. v. Versus
8. Jdr Jodhpur
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Books
Cases citation
Hyperlinks
http://www.indiankanoon.org
The counsel for the plaintiff has approached the learned court . The defendant humbly
submits to the jurisdiction of the court.
It is humbly submitted before the learned court that the defendant (Mansukh
Sardesai) is being sued for negligence. As there is no negligence on part of
defendant. However the plaintiff himself is the wrong doer.
In this case plaintiff himself a wrong doer, himself is negligent, as he was drunk,
despite this fact, he proceeded to bench press and did a rigorous workout and he
suffered injuries as a result of not fastening the weights correctly. This shows the
carelessness of plaintiff and the GYM is not liable for the same.
In this case the words spoken by plaintiff (Rakesh Hegde) were defamatory, it
tends to injure the reputation of the plaintiff, the statements were referred to
the defendant and lastly they are spoken in front of other members of the gym
which amounts to publication.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
This is the humble submission before the learned city civil court of Jodhpur at
Jodhpur that defendant ( Mr. Mansukh sardesai) is being sued for the negligence. As
there is no negligence on the part of defendant.
The injury to the plaintiff is due to his own wrong conduct of doing workout
under the influence of alcohol. Due to this the plaintiff had not fastened the
weights correctly, this shows the carelessness of the plaintiff and the gym had
not liability.
The plaintiff’s allegations about the equipment is totally false, as there were
no old equipment, all equipment are properly checked, they were the were
given proper maintenance by the trainers themselves.
1
Law of torts, by Dr. R.K. Bangia , 24 th edition , 2017
2. The said statement must refer to the plaintiff :- must have been taken
it to be for plaintiff by like-minded people. Intention to referred to
plaintiff is irrelevant.
2
(1969) Jab. L.J. 582 : (1969) M.P.L.J. 483 : 1970 Cr. L.J. 286 (Madh. Pra.)
3
A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 445.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
XI
Rakesh Hegde v. Mansukh Sardesai
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this learned city
civil court of Jodhpur at Jodhpur that it may be pleased to,
Date :-
Place:- Jodhpur