GIRIJA NANDAN Vs. BALARAM CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference made by two learned Judges of the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for our opinion on the point "whether in a contested suit a Small Cause Court Judge is bound to write any judgment."

(2.) The Reference arose under the following circumstances. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 600/- from the defendant on account of his salary for the month of September, 1949, the fixed salary being Rs. 600/- per month. The defendant filed a Written Statement disputing this claim. The suit became a contested one. In the course of this suit, on the 9th of March 1950, the hearing of the suit was adjourned to the 16th. of May 1950. On the latter date by consent of parties, the suit was adjourned to 18th July, 1950. On the 18th July, 1950, the suit was decreed. The order of the Court bearing date 18th July 1950, runs as follows:

(3.) The defendant thereupon made an application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for a new trial. This matter carne up for hearing before the Chief Judge Mr. Ganguly and the trial Judge Mr. Biswas. At the. hearing of this application for a new trial, the two learned Judges differed on the question to which I have already referred, and in consequence, this Reference under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act has been made to this Court for its opinion. The order of Reference sets out the facts of the case and states the point on which the Reference is made. It also states the two conflicting views on the point in dispute, and then concludes by saying that in the opinion of the Chief Judge the trial Judge should write out a judgment. It also states the opinion of Mr. Biswas, the trial Judge, that no such judgment need be written. The order of Reference is signed by the Chief Judge Mr. Ganguly and by the trial Judge Mr. Biswas.