Skip to content


KasiraddIn Paramanik Vs. Kasir Mandal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Cal227
AppellantKasiraddIn Paramanik
RespondentKasir Mandal
Excerpt:
- .....munsif for his counter-claim, the suit which was dismissed a little over a month after the present suit before the small cause court judge was disposed of. the case came on for hearing. the judge heard the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defendant and his witnesses and arguments on both sides. it then appears that he took the ordinary noon-day adjournment and, on coming back to the court, it is admitted by him in the explanation he furnished, he put the plaintiff and the defendant both in the box to confront each other and note their demeanour and did not swear them but heard them argue in support of their cases. it appears that they said nothing more than what they stated in evidence. he then let them leave the box and passed judgment dismissing the suit.2. this rule has been obtained.....
Judgment:

Duval, J.

1. In this matter the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 500, the balance due on a certain jute transaction. The defendant, in his written statement, stated that the case was false, but, on the other hand, he was entitled to a certain amount from the plaintiff. He did not mention in his written statement in the suit that he had sued in the Court of the 2nd Munsif for his counter-claim, the suit which was dismissed a little over a month after the present suit before the Small Cause Court Judge was disposed of. The case came on for hearing. The Judge heard the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defendant and his witnesses and arguments on both sides. It then appears that he took the ordinary noon-day adjournment and, on coming back to the Court, it is admitted by him in the explanation he furnished, he put the plaintiff and the defendant both in the box to confront each other and note their demeanour and did not swear them but heard them argue in support of their cases. It appears that they said nothing more than what they stated in evidence. He then let them leave the box and passed judgment dismissing the suit.

2. This Rule has been obtained on the ground that the procedure in putting those two parties in the box without putting them on oath, and let each talk to the other is not warranted by law and has vitiated the whole trial. No doubt, in his explanation, the learned Judge says that he decided on the evidence, but he had to decide on that evidence considering the probabilities of the case, and it is difficult to believe, in deciding as to who Was more likely to speak the truth, that what occurred after the lunch did not weigh with him in some way, even though he does not think that he did and it is clear that this method of putting the two men into the box after the case had been concluded, excepting for judgment, is not warranted by law. I am, therefore, compelled in the circumstances to set aside the decree in the case and remit the case for a rehearing. The case must be tried by some other Judge with the necessary powers, and if there is none in the Civil Division of Pabna and Bogra it will be transferred to a Judge exercising such Small Cause Court jurisdiction in the District of Rajshahi.

3. In the circumstances, I pass no order as to costs.


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