Skip to content


Ponnammal Ammal Vs. Modern Stores, Through Partner Mahadeva Iyer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1001 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad62
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 13, Rule 3
AppellantPonnammal Ammal
RespondentModern Stores, Through Partner Mahadeva Iyer and ors.
Appellant AdvocateP.N. Appuswami Iyer, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.V. Rama Iyengar, ;R. Ramasubha Iyer and ;T. Venkatadri, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - prima facie the order passed by the learned district munsif is rather an extraordinary one reading, as it does, like a judgment, but with no finding on the issues and ending up with a mere ruling as regards admissibility of some evidence......present suit.2. this revision petition seeks to revise a rather curious finding pronounced by the learned district munsif after plaintiff's evidence was completed as regards the admissibility of evidence relating to some private settlement of accounts as between defendant 2 and defendant 3 which the former desired to advance in evidence. the district munsif heard elaborate arguments and without giving an immediate ruling as regards admissibility reserved judgment and after three days' consideration 'delivered an order embodying the substance of the pleadings, the issues and then lengthy reasons for holding that the evidence defendant 2 sought to let in was inadmissible. he pronounced this order on 24th june 1948 and adjourned the suit to 29th june 1948. in the meantime the learned.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mack, J.

1. Petitioner is defendant 2 in a small cause suit filed by the Modern Stores, Tirunelveli, to recover about Rs. 1400 in respect of cloth and other goods supplied to her brother defendant 3 Defendant 1 is the son of defendant 2. Defendant 3 who had a power of attorney from his sister according to the plaintiff shop, on the strength of this authority made those purchases for the marriage of his own daughter to defendant 1. In the suit defendants 2 and 3 endeavoured to evade liability, defendant 2 alleging that her brother had exceeded his powers and acted in these purchases for himself and so on. It is clear that subsequent to the marriage misunderstandings broke out between brother and sister which sought a solution in the present suit.

2. This revision petition seeks to revise a rather curious finding pronounced by the learned District Munsif after plaintiff's evidence was completed as regards the admissibility of evidence relating to some private settlement of accounts as between defendant 2 and defendant 3 which the former desired to advance in evidence. The District Munsif heard elaborate arguments and without giving an immediate ruling as regards admissibility reserved judgment and after three days' consideration 'delivered an order embodying the substance of the pleadings, the issues and then lengthy reasons for holding that the evidence defendant 2 sought to let in was inadmissible. He pronounced this order on 24th June 1948 and adjourned the suit to 29th June 1948. In the meantime the learned advocate for defendant 2 filed a petition for stay which the learned District Munsif was wrong in granting and this revision petition was filed to revise the finding of the learned District Munsif on this question of admissibility of evidence. The suit was stayed pending disposal of this petition.

3. The procedure adopted by the learned District Munsif has to be deprecated. The trial of a suit should not be held up in this manner and a long ruling given in the middle of the trial by an order setting out the pleadings, issues and so on as in a judgment and then posting the suit for further hearing. A ruling as regards admissibility of evidence should be as brief as possible and once the ruling has been given, there should be no interruption in the trial and the trial Court should proceed with the trial to judgment without interruption. In its judgment the order should incorporate fuller reasons, if need be, for holding particular evidence to be inadmissible. Prima facie the order passed by the learned District Munsif is rather an extraordinary one reading, as it does, like a judgment, but with no finding on the issues and ending up with a mere ruling as regards admissibility of some evidence.

4. I see no grounds for any interference in revision, it being apparent that defendants 2 and 3 are seeking in this suit to resolve some misunderstanding between themselves which arose subsequent to the purchase of these goods from the plaintiff-shop. Liability has to be determined by the relationship which existed between the parties vis-a-vis the shop at the time the shop supplied these goods. The petition is dismissed with costs of respondent 1 with a direction to the District Munsif to take this suit now to as speedy a conclusion as possible.


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