Skip to content


Ratna Pathan Vs. Para Sundaram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad547(2); 30Ind.Cas.634
AppellantRatna Pathan
RespondentPara Sundaram
Cases ReferredChethru Gope v. Sri Charan Bhagat
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908) order xviii, rule 13 - provincial small cause court--abstract of evidence incomplete--judgment based on such abstract, whether legal. - - it is contended before me that the judge did not take an abstract of the deposition of the 5th witness, nor of the witness for the defendant the learned counsel for the counter-petitioner is unable to say whether this contention is well-founded or not......for decision was whether the defendant executed the note sued on. the conclusion came to by the district munsif is that that document is not genuine. this is based upon the evidence of witnesses who, it is contended by the petitioner before me, all speak to the execution of the document. in the note appended to the judgment it is stated that six witnesses were examined, five for the plaintiff and one for the defendant. in the notes sent up to this court the evidence of the sixth witness does not appear. as regards the fifth witness for the plaintiff, the only portion of his evidence is that which stops with 'i am' and is not taken any further. it is contended before me that the judge did not take an abstract of the deposition of the 5th witness, nor of the witness for the defendant.....
Judgment:

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The point for decision was whether the defendant executed the note sued on. The conclusion came to by the District Munsif is that that document is not genuine. This is based upon the evidence of witnesses who, it is contended by the petitioner before me, all speak to the execution of the document. In the note appended to the judgment it is stated that six witnesses were examined, five for the plaintiff and one for the defendant. In the notes sent up to this Court the evidence of the sixth witness does not appear. As regards the fifth witness for the plaintiff, the only portion of his evidence is that which stops with 'I am' and is not taken any further. It is contended before me that the Judge did not take an abstract of the deposition of the 5th witness, nor of the witness for the defendant The learned Counsel for the counter-petitioner is unable to say whether this contention is well-founded or not. The records sent up to this Court do not show that the deposition of the defendant's witness was taken on any other day or that the Judge made any note of his deposition. Under these circumstances I must regard this procedure of the District Munsif as illegal and as being opposed to Order XVIII, Rule 13. See also Chethru Gope v. Sri Charan Bhagat 9 C.W.N. 420. I must set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct him to record as required by law and to pass a proper decree in the case.


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