SABAPATHY PATHAN Vs. PERUMAL PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are not satisfied that the learned Subordinate Judge acted irregularly either in admitting additional evidence in appeal or in inspecting the site. The Judge gave substantial reasons for admitting additional evidence in the shape of public records.

(2.) Rai Kishori Ghose V/s. Kumudini Kanta Ghose (1912) 14 I.C., 377, Avant Lal Sahu V/s. Gokul Sahu (1916) 35 I.C., 344 and Dawarka Prasad V/s. Makhu Lal (1918) 62 I.C., 241 have been quoted in support of the argument that it is illegal for a Court in person to hold a local inquiry.

(3.) The two latter are judgments of single Judges and in all these cases the decisions are based on the omission from Order XXVI, Rule 9, of the Civil P. C., of the words that occurred in Section 392 of the Old Code, which provided for the issue of a commission for a local investigation only in cases where it could not be conveniently conducted by the Judge in person. Two of the learned Judges relied also on the English practice in such matters. In India we must be guided by our own Civil Procedure Code on matters of procedure which are specifically provided for.