1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. An affidavit was filed in this Court to the effect that a part of the statement of a witness recorded by the Judge in the body of the order of that date and struck out by him was the statement as made by the plaintiff Arath Lal and that what was recorded on the earlier page as his statement was not the whole statement of Arathi Lal and further that the finishing of the statement of the process-server and the pronouncement of the order of rejection of the restoration application of the petitioner were done simultaneously and that the deponent was convinced that the Judge recorded, or more specifically, commenced the recording of the order before he finished the entire evidence of the case. If this were absolutely true, it would undoubtedly show that there has been a gross irregularity in the trial of the case and that the learned Judge made his mind to dismiss the suit before hearing the whole evidence and before hearing the arguments of counsel. Obviously, as the incident happened several months ago, the Judge is not likely to have a clear recollection of what happened. He does not believe that the allegations of the deponent can be true, but he admits in his report that he started writing the judgment when the arguments were going on and, during the argument of one of the counsel, quoted the statement of a witness. He also says that he mechanically 'translated' that statement in the course of the judgment.
2. As the statement was not in the vernacular there was no question of translating it, but it could only be a question of reproducing it. Curiously enough, the statement of Arath Lal was written after the remarks in the order: 'The applicant's story is improbable, I do not believe it.' This opinion was noted while the arguments were still going on. This in itself was objectionable. It is noteworthy that the opposite party has not thought fit to file any affidavit denying the allegations contained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. It is a significant fact that some more statements appear in the portion cut out from the body of the order than what appeared in the statement recorded on the previous page. For instance, 'as surety for Jhaggar' or 'and I have got a receipt' are statements which did not find any place in the statement as previously recorded. Here it may be added that the word which could not be deciphered by anyone at the date of the previous hearing and which was taken to be 'moneys' is stated by the Judge to be in this Court to the effect that a part an examination of the word with the help of a magnifying glass it would at the utmost be 'smns' or smnes' but not 'summons.' I am not satisfied that the disposal of this case has been quite regular and according to law. I accordingly allow this revision, and setting aside the order of the Court below send the case back to that Court for disposal according' to law. Costs will abide the event.
3. In view of what has happened I think that in the interests of justice this case should be transferred from the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, to that of the Court of Mr. J.K. Dar, Munsif, West Allahabad. I accordingly make that order Section 24. Civil P.C.