R. S. MAHMOOD, DEFENDANT Vs. SYED AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is referred to a Bench by the late Ramachandra Rao J., as he felt that an authoritative ruling of a Division Bench was needed on the question whether notes of evidence recorded by one Judge could be acted upon by his successor in office.

(2.) The facts leading up to the reference are in a short compass. The respondent laid an action in the Court of Small Causes, Hyderabad for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,200/-. After the plaintiff adduced his evidence, the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes who was trying that cause, died. When his successor took up the trial of the case, the defendant put in a petition requesting that the case should be heard de novo. This request was refused and the trial Judge wanted to proceed with the trial of the suit from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. Thereupon, the defendant filed the present revision under Section 12 of the Hyderabad Small Causes Courts Act.

(3.) The question raised by this petition is whether it is competent for the successor to act on the notes of evidence on the record although it was not recorded by him. The point under examination has to be determined with reference to the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Small Cause Courts Act (VI of 1330 Fasli). The schedule to that Act inter alia recites :