Skip to content


Baul Chandra Addya Vs. Sheikh Abdul Matleb - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in67Ind.Cas.851
AppellantBaul Chandra Addya
RespondentSheikh Abdul Matleb
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1998), order xx, rule 4(1) - small cause court, judgment of--judgment specifying points for decision and entering findings seriatim, whether proper--suit to recover amount on basis of acknowledgment, whether cognizable by small cause court--provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), section 25--jurisdiction--no error of law--interference by high court, if competent. - .....a decree of the court of small causes at 'sealdah. it is urged that the judgment passed by the learned small cause court judge is not in accordance with law.2. the learned judge has specified the points for decision and has entered his findings seriatim under each of the issues mentioned by him. we thick he has complied with the provisions of order xx, rule 4, clause 1.3. the next point urged is with regard to the defendant not having been given a sufficient opportunity of calling a handwriting expert. there was an application for review before the learned judge and the reason he has given in his judgment on that application affords a complete answer to this objection.4. it is also argued that the present suit being one for account is not cognizable by the small cause court. it.....
Judgment:

1. This Rule is directed against a decree of the Court of Small Causes at 'Sealdah. It is urged that the judgment passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge is not in accordance with law.

2. The learned Judge has specified the points for decision and has entered his findings seriatim under each of the issues mentioned by him. We thick he has complied with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4, Clause 1.

3. The next point urged is with regard to the defendant not having been given a sufficient opportunity of calling a handwriting expert. There was an application for review before the learned Judge and the reason he has given in his judgment on that application affords a complete answer to this objection.

4. It is also argued that the present suit being one for account is not cognizable by the Small Cause Court. It appears from the judgment of the learned Judge that the plaintiff's case was that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs dues to be Rs. 522-1-6 for which the suit was brought. An issue was framed by the learned Judge that 'did the defendant acknowledge the plaintiffs dues to be Rs. 522-1.6,' and his decision on that issue is that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's dues to be Rs. 522-1 6. Such being the case, the Small Cause Court was quite competent to try this suit.

5. We are of opinion that the Court below has not committed any error of law within the meaning of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act so as to invite our intervention with the decree.

6. The Rule is discharged.

Rule No. 512 of 1921.

7. The main Rule (No. 476 of 1921) being discharged this Bole is also discharged.


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