MD. SEKHAWAT HUSSAIN Vs. NARSINGHLAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sahewalla, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) IN this case, the Defendant inspite of several adjournments failed to file written statement and consequently the learned trial Court passed the following order:

(3.) I am unable to accept contention of Mr. Sahewalla. I may state that Plaintiff is not supported by an affidavit and it is only verified. That apart, though these two rules, namely, Rule 5 and Rule 10 of order 8 empower the court to pronounce judgment, it would not mean, in my opinion, that the court can do so without recording evidence, the minimum requirement being that Plaintiff should be examined on oath. I say so as Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law and under substantive law, Plaintiff has to prove his case (see Section 101 of the Evidence Act). I may also add that there may be cases where on reading the plaint it may appear to the court that a claim or part of it may be barred by limitation, apart from other legal defects that may come to the notice of the Court in the Case In hand there is nothing to show that the court even read the plaint.