B N CHOBE Vs. A CHAFFAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination before us is whether a Judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Hyderabad Small Causes Courts Act can act upon the memorandum of Evidence already recorded by his predecessor, or whether he should conduct a trial de novo.

(2.) In R.S. Mahmood v. Syed Ahmed, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 65 = (1962) 1 Andh WR 154 a Division Bench of this Court (Chandra Reddy, C.J. and Narasimham, J) took the view that in such a case there should be a de novo trial. As the correctness of this decision has been challenged, the case is placed before the Full Bench.

(3.) This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in a small causes suit in the four witnesses have given evidence on behalf of the plaintiff the presiding officer was transferred on promotion. When the case was taken up by the successor, the defendant filed an application I.A.No.156 of 1971 asking for a de novo trial on the ground that the succeeding judge has no power to act upon the memorandum of evidence recorded by his predecessor. The said application was allowed ordering a de novo trial following the judgment of this Court in AIR 1963 Andh Pra 65 = (1962) 1 An WR 154, Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff filed this revision.