Skip to content


Sheik Dada Sahib Vs. Jammu Latchanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1776 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad80; (1952)IIMLJ290
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 165; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 16, Rules 7 and 14; Madras High Court Standing Orders - Order 239
AppellantSheik Dada Sahib
RespondentJammu Latchanna
Appellant AdvocateG. Balaparameswara Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV. Suryanarayana, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - suryanarayana or troubled about looking after the work that he had left behind, a sad commentary on the existing system of advocates working singly one which ensures no continuity of legal service either to the client or to the court. it is perfectly open to the trial court to put him in the witness box, as a court witness and see if he is possessed of knowledge which after being tested by cross-examination by both sides would be materially helpful to decide any issue......court. instead of granting an adjournment in a civil revision petition of 1950 to enable a notice, death notice as it is called, to be issued by the office, i heard mr. balaparameswara rao in support of the petitioner on its merits as to whether it was really sustainable.2. the suit was one for recovery of rs. 851 being the value of bricks supplied at rs. 20 per thousand. the main point of law relied on is that the plaintiff summoned a witness but did not examine him and the court then put this witness into the box and examined him as court witness 1. it would appear that largely on the testimony that he gave that the learned additional subordinate judge gave the plaintiff a decree for rs. 405 instead of decreeing his claim in full. i am quite unable to see anything wrong with the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mack, J.

1. When this petition was called for hearing, it was brought to my notice that Mr. V. Suryanarayana who represented the respondent passed away several months ago. No notice of his death as required by Order 239 of the Standing Orders of the High Court office appears to have been issued to the respondent. No one apparently has appeared from the office of the late Mr. Suryanarayana or troubled about looking after the work that he had left behind, a sad commentary on the existing system of advocates working singly one which ensures no continuity of legal service either to the client or to the Court. Instead of granting an adjournment in a civil revision petition of 1950 to enable a notice, death notice as it is called, to be issued by the office, I heard Mr. Balaparameswara Rao in support of the petitioner on its merits as to whether it was really sustainable.

2. The suit was one for recovery of Rs. 851 being the value of bricks supplied at Rs. 20 per thousand. The main point of law relied on is that the plaintiff summoned a witness but did not examine him and the Court then put this witness into the box and examined him as court witness 1. It would appear that largely on the testimony that he gave that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 405 instead of decreeing his claim in full. I am quite unable to see anything wrong with the procedure adopted by the learned Judge. There is no restriction on the Court examining any witness who in its opinion can give any evidence helpful to the Court and when one party cites a witness and does not examine him. It is perfectly open to the trial Court to put him in the witness box, as a court witness and see if he is possessed of knowledge which after being tested by cross-examination by both sides would be materially helpful to decide any issue.

The rest of the argument of the learned advocate was really concerned with the appreciation of the plaintiff's evidence on the one hand and the defendant's evidence on the other. I am unable to see any grounds which would justify any interference with the finding of the lower Court which is essentially one of fact on the available materials. There is in the circumstances no necessity to adjourn this old petition for issue of a death notice and appearance of the respondent by another advocate. The petition in the circumstances is dismissed but without any order as to costs, with a direction to the office to send the respondent the death notice now with also an intimation that thispetition has been dismissed on its merits without any order as to costs.


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