Skip to content


Rajdeo Vs. Nath Prasad Misra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All832
AppellantRajdeo
RespondentNath Prasad Misra
Excerpt:
- - the onus of proving the absence of consideration was clearly upon the defendant......of consideration was clearly upon the defendant. the court below framed the issue namely:is the bond for consideration.2. the suit was dismissed with the following finding:it appears that the bond is without consideration, the issue decided accordingly. order: the suit fails and dismissed with costs.3. a judge of the court of small causes is not required under the law to write an elaborate judgment but there ought to be some indication in his judgment that he has applied a judicial mind to the case. there is no indication of this in the present case. the plaintiff and the defendant were examined in this case. the subordinate judge does not even state that he believes the evidence of the defendant, upon whom the onus lay in preference to that of the plaintiff. the case has not been.....
Judgment:

Sen, J.

1. The discretion conferred upon this Court for interference under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is more extensive than the powers of this Court in a revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. Plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of a certain sum of money on a bond alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant appears to have admitted the execution of the bond but to have denied that the bond was for consideration. The onus of proving the absence of consideration was clearly upon the defendant. The Court below framed the issue namely:

Is the bond for consideration.

2. The suit was dismissed with the following finding:

It appears that the bond is without consideration, The issue decided accordingly. Order: The suit fails and dismissed with costs.

3. A Judge of the Court of Small Causes is not required under the law to write an elaborate judgment but there ought to be some indication in his judgment that he has applied a judicial mind to the case. There is no indication of this in the present case. The plaintiff and the defendant were examined in this case. The Subordinate Judge does not even state that he believes the evidence of the defendant, upon whom the onus lay in preference to that of the plaintiff. The case has not been properly tried. I set aside the decree of the Court below and direct that the case be re-instated in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Deoria under its original number and disposed of according to law. Costs here and heretofore to abide the event. Costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //