LUTHER SAHU Vs. DOMAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The petitioner sued the opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 50 upon a bond bearing data the 1st June, 1917. The opposite party No. 2 who is minor son of opposite party No. 1, was made defendant on his own prayer on the allegation that the opposite party No. 1 is insane, and he then contested the suit on that allegation and a denial that the mo nay had been borrowed the Judge of the Small Cause Court held that the bond was not genuine and for consideration. He found that the document wan suspicious being written in throe different inks and that it was improbable that the plaintiff would lend money to a man of straw owning nothing but his house. he mentioned that the plaintiff had declined to Lake a special oath, and finally wrote "The witnesses of the plaintiff cannot be believed." He accordingly dismissed the suit. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the decree is not in accordance with law because the opposite party No. 2 should not have been made a party, because no petition tendering a special oath was filed and the plaintiff was therefore unable to show cause why he was unwilling to accept the proposal that he should take a special oath.

(2.) Now, even if there were mistakes of law in respect of these matters, it is not for every such mistake that this Court will interfere under Section 25. The mistakes, if there are such, are not shown to have at all affected the result or to have prejudiced the petitioner the chief findings of fact are independent of these matters and are sufficient basis for negativing the claim--the document, it has been found, is prima facie suspicious--it is incredible that anyone would lend money to the opposite party No. 1 and, as the petitioner's witnesses cannot be believed, the oral testimony does not advance his case. These are findings of fact upon which (apart from any other considerations) the plaintiff was bound to fail, and with such findings in a Small Cause, this Court would be reluctant to interfere even on stronger grounds than are here advanced.

(3.) Accordingly the Rule is discharged and the application dismissed with costs to the contesting opposite party.