JAGMOHAN MISIR Vs. MENDHAI DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the revision of an order and decree of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Jaunpur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's suit was based on a promissory note for Rs. 300. The contesting defendants, although they admitted that they had signed the promissory note and receipt, claimed that they had affixed their signature to a blank paper and that there was no consideration in cash. They alleged that they had induced the plaintiff to give evidence for them in a mutation case by affixing their signature to the promissory note and receipt. On these pleadings the Judge framed an issue in the following form; Did the defendants execute the promissory note in suit for consideration?"

(2.) The burden of proof was in fact thrown on the plaintiff and he produced himself and two witnesses, viz., the witness to the promissory note and receipt and a mukhtar, to prove that the note had been duly executed for a cash consideration. Defendant 1 produced himself and one witness who alleged that he was present when the note was executed and that there was no consideration. It is argued in revision that this decision was contrary to law.

(3.) In the case of Muhammad Bakar V/s. Bahal Singh [1891] 13 All. 277 a Pull Bench of this Court defined the limitations of Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. They held that the High Court should not interfere under that section, unless it clearly appeared to us that some substantial injustice to a party to the litigation had directly resulted from a material misapplication or misapprehension of law or material error in procedure in the Court of Small Causes.