Skip to content


Johan Smidt Vs. Ram Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR38Cal425
AppellantJohan Smidt
RespondentRam Prasad
Cases ReferredSassoon v. Hurry Das Bhukcut
Excerpt:
presidency small cause court - new trial--powers of bench sitting on application for new trial--jurisdiction--practice--questions of fact and of law--presidency small cause courts act (xv of 1882) sections 37 and 88--amendment (act 1 of 1895) section 13--civil procedure code (act v of 1908) section 115. - harington, j.1. this rule must be discharged. section 38 of the presidency small cause courts act gives the court power, inter alia, to order a new trial to be held. it has been argued by learned counsel in support of the rule that the court can only exercise the power under section 38 if a question of law arises, but i find no such limitation in section 38, and i think that the judgment in the case of sassoon v. hurry das bhukcut (1896) i.l.r. 24 cale. 455, shews that a new trial may be ordered where the judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.2. the rule must he discharged with costs.
Judgment:

Harington, J.

1. This rule must be discharged. Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act gives the Court power, inter alia, to order a new trial to be held. It has been argued by learned Counsel in support of the rule that the Court can only exercise the power under Section 38 if a question of law arises, but I find no such limitation in Section 38, and I think that the judgment in the case of Sassoon v. Hurry Das Bhukcut (1896) I.L.R. 24 Cale. 455, shews that a new trial may be ordered where the judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

2. The rule must he discharged with costs.


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