NARISETTI KANAKA RAJU Vs. BODDU NAGABHUSHNAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No. 386 of 1956 was filed as against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru in O.S. No 107 of 1955 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,321/- alleged to be due under a promissory note dated 14-5-1951. Appeal No. 387 of 1956 was filed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru in O.S. No. 108 of 1955 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,600/- alleged to be due under a promissory note dated 23-1-1951. Both the suits were dismissed by the Subordinate Judge summarily. He did not grant the applications for adjournment filed by the 2nd defendant in each of the suits for examining her witnesses. It is stated that a medical certificate was produced on her behalf. It is surprising that the learned Subordinate Judge refused to grant an adjournment in the two suits involving such heavy stakes, even though the 2nd defendant was ill. I.A. No. 1714 of 1955, filed in O.S. No. 107 of 1955, on behalf of the plaintiff to permit him to take a photographic copy of the endorsement made on the suit pro-note was adjourned for filing counter to 18-11-1955. Though no counter was filed, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground that no photographic copy was necessary and proceeded to dismiss the suits on the same day. He failed to note that the plaintiff wanted the photographic copy to be sent to a handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison.

(2.) Justice has miserably failed in this case as a result of the learned Judge hustling through the suits and refusing to grant an adjournment to the 2nd defendant and dismissing the application of the plaintiff to grant a photographic copy for the purpose of being sent to an expert. The disposal of the two suits in such a summary manner reveals how justice is sacrifised on the ground of speedy disposal of the suits involving such large amounts. The Learned Subordinate Judge acted with great haste and failed to note that courts exist for the purpose of meting out justice and not for the purpose of speedy disposal of suits in such an erroneous manner.

(3.) The decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The appeals are allowed and the suits are remanded for a proper disposal. The costs of the appeals will abide the result. The court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in each of the appeals will be refunded. The suits are directed to be disposed of by a different Judge. Both the parties will be given ample opportunity to lead whatever evidence they like and the plaintiff also will be permitted to send the promissory notes to a handwriting expert.