ROSHAN LAL Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff petitioner had brought the suit on the basis of two pronotes executed in his favour by the defendant respondent each for Rs. 200. He also admitted payment to the extent of Rs 117. The defence was that the real consideration of each of the pronotes was Rs. 100 only and that the defendant had made repayment in excess of Rs. 117. Each party examined itself. While in the witness-box the defendant offerred to be bound by a special oath to be taken by the plaintiff on Ganga Jali. The plaintiff however declined to take the special oath because he has to file many such suits being a professional money-lender and he saw no reason to take special oath.

(2.) The trial Court on discussion of evidence found that the defendant had failed to prove that the real consideration of the pronotes was not Rs. 200 but only Rs. 100 and also that he had made repayment in excess of Rs. 117. The trial Court however observed that there was hardly any reason on the part of the plaintiff not to take special oath himself or to suffer special oath on the part of defendant, it took this conduct into account and held that the real consideration of each pronote was Rs. 100 only and dismissed the suit without any order as to costs.

(3.) In this revision by the plaintiff petitioner the only question is what was the effect of the refusal of the plaintiff to take the special oath offered to him by the defendant. Section 12 of the Oaths Act, 1873 states that if a party refused to make oath, the Court shall record the nature of the oath and the reasons for the refusal by the plaintiff to take the oath as part of the proceedings. It is true that this circumstance can be taken into account by the Court in appreciating the evidence on record and come to a decision on the questions before it. It is equally true that this circumstance cannot take the the place of evidence and cannot enable the Court to decide the whole case only on the strength of it.