RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. RAMESHWARDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal, who lost in both the Courts below. The short point urged this appeal is that the defendant's right to fair trial having been infringed the decrees of both Courts below are rendered nullity by Art.39-A of the Constitution.

(2.) The plaintiff based his suit on a Hundi for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Defendant's case was that he had not borrowed any amount on the basis of that Hundi but admitted that the amount, which was kept in deposit with him was "black money" and to evidence the deposit the Hundi was executed. It was his further case that the amount was returned by him and the plaintiff was not entitled therefore to claim decree against him for any sum or any account. Shri Tomar, who appears for the defendant-appellant, has made a short submission drawing my attention to certain peculiar but crucial features of the case.

(3.) The fact of the matter which is admitted at the Bar is that after the plaintiff respondent closed his evidence and defendant entered upon his defence, he examined himself on 4-2-1967 in pArt.There were several dates in the case to which hearing was adjourned thereafter from time to time. However, on 12-8-1968, an application was filed by the defendant for further adjournment of the case submitting that the case was fixed for evidence of defendant's side and the defendant proposed to examine several witnesses in support of his case. However, the witnesses, among others, a clerk of the State Bank of India, refused to give evidence without being summoned by the Court. It was also submitted in that application itself that defendant's examination-in-chief had still to be completed and his further examination be resumed after evidence of Hand-Writing Expert to be examined by him. The application was rejected on the same date, namely, 12-8-1968; and on the very same date defendant's case was closed and arguments were heard reserving final orders. The short question is, whether this could be done legally and if not whether the judgements and decrees passed by both the Courts below can at all be sustained in law.