Skip to content


V. Ramaswami Iyer Vs. the Madras Times Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.610
AppellantV. Ramaswami Iyer
RespondentThe Madras Times Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd.
Excerpt:
presidency small cause courts act (xv of 1882), section 69 - reference, contents of. - .....begins with the words, 'the facts of the case are as follows' but on page 33, we find that the judges differ on the very important question whether the plaintiff did any work after exhibit e. they also state that as regards the kind of work done the learned trial judge has found that it is not proved, but the judges express no opinion on that point themselves. we would also note that the learned judges have extracted portions of letters in their statement, thereby introducing evidence into the findings. we must return the reference and request the court to state the facts of the case as found by them as shortly and concisely as possible, we must further ask the courts after having found the facts to decide on what questions of law they differ on those facts and give us the benefit of.....
Judgment:

1. This is a reference under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. We regret that we cannot accept it as it stands. The section requires that the Court shall draw up a statement of the facts of the case. The reference begins with the words, 'The facts of the case are as follows' but on page 33, we find that the Judges differ on the very important question whether the plaintiff did any work after Exhibit E. They also state that as regards the kind of work done the learned Trial Judge has found that it is not proved, but the Judges express no opinion on that point themselves. We would also note that the learned Judges have extracted portions of letters in their statement, thereby introducing evidence into the findings. We must return the reference and request the Court to state the facts of the case as found by them as shortly and concisely as possible, We must further ask the Courts after having found the facts to decide on what questions of law they differ on those facts and give us the benefit of their individual opinion on those facts, not on the view of the facts taken by each Judge himself.


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