Skip to content


Muhammad Zackria by Power Agent V.T. Abdulla Rowther Vs. Abdul Karim Rowther - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1956)2MLJ371
AppellantMuhammad Zackria by Power Agent V.T. Abdulla Rowther
RespondentAbdul Karim Rowther
Excerpt:
- .....in person in court and deny the settlement of accounts and his signature therein. so he refused to issue a commission. hence this petition.2. i have perused the entire records and heard the counsel on both sides mr. k. raman for the petitioner, urged that the lower court went wrong in refusing o issue a commission, when it was admitted that the petitioner was living in singapore a far-off place mr. naidu for the plaintiff respondent, urged that singapore now become only one day distant from india, because of the magnificent constellation service of air india international and other air services operating, being only 6 days distant even by steamer, and that a party defendant like the petitioned denying the genuineness of his signature in the accounts should appear in court and give.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. This is a petition filed by one Zackria Rowther against the order of the District Munsif of Valangiman at Kumbakonam, refusing to issue a commission for examining him at Singapore. He was the defendant in O.S. No 160 of IZ, on the file of that Court, a suit filed against him by one Abdul Kareem Rowther for recovering a sum of Rs. 2,400 evidenced by a settlement of accounts said to have been signed by him, with full knowledge and consent. His defence was that he did not sign in the accounts, and that the amount claimed was not due from him. He filed I.A. No. 601 of 1955 for examining him on commission, in Singapore on he ground that he was residing m Singapore, for more than 1 year past. The District Munsif held that it was essential in such a case, for him to appear in person in Court and deny the settlement of accounts and his signature therein. So he refused to issue a commission. Hence this petition.

2. I have perused the entire records and heard the counsel on both sides Mr. K. Raman for the petitioner, urged that the lower Court went wrong in refusing o issue a commission, when it was admitted that the petitioner was living in Singapore a far-off place Mr. Naidu for the plaintiff respondent, urged that Singapore now become only one day distant from India, because of the magnificent constellation service of Air India International and other air services operating, being only 6 days distant even by steamer, and that a party defendant like the petitioned denying the genuineness of his signature in the accounts should appear in Court and give evidence so that his demeanour might be observed by the Judge. I agree. The days of buffalo carts and bullock carts have gone, and the whole world has become one now, any part of which can be reached within a week at the maximum. Singapore appeared to be fabulously distant to our ancestors, like Benares, but has now become easily accessible, and can indeed, and that and can indeed be reached in a lesser time than many an interior village in India itself. In a case like this, it will be of the greatest help to the Court to see the defendant and observe his demeanour when he gives evidence to the effect that no accounts were settled, and that he did not sign in token of the settlement of accounts. It is not correct to say, as Mr. Raman does, that evidence given on commission will be equal in every respect to evidence given in open Court as un fortunately many people do not have that respect and fear for a Commissioner, as they have for a Judge. So to ensure that true evidence is given a party had better be examined in Court in the presence of the Judge. Besides evidence, in black and white, in cold print, does not speak with the same validity as evidence given by a living witness before a living Judge, who hears him and has to form an opinion about the matter covered by his evidence. So I agree with the lower Court that it was essential, in the circumstances of this case, to examine the petitioner, in Court itself, and that it was inexpedient to issue a commission.

3. It was then represented by Mr. K. Raman that I should give sufficient time for the petitioner, to appear in the lower Court and give evidence. It is a reasonable request and I readily grant it. The lower Court will post the suit to a date' three clear months from today, so that the petitioner may have ample time to come and give his evidence. With the above direction this petition is dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.


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