AFSAR KHAN Vs. SHABU MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was granted to show cause why the decree complained of should not be set aside and such order passed as to this Court might seem fit. The decree complained of was a decree made in consequence of the judgment by the learned Subordinate 4 Judge on the 3rd of August 1921.

(2.) The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover money alleged to have been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant.

(3.) The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge and arguments were presented to the learned Subordinate Judge on the nth and 12 of August 1921. The judgment, as I have already said, was delivered on the 31st of August. By that judgment the learned Subordinate Judge overruled the decision of the Court of first in stance, allowed the appeal, and decreed the suit for Rs. 72 0 plus Rs. 20 as damages. In the judgment the learned Judge discussed the evidence which was given on the one side and the other, and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had made out his case, 3. The petition upon which this Rule, was granted alleged that on the 20 of August (hi learned Judge called on the Pleaders for the opposite part}, (that is the plaintiff), to produce the plaintiff before him in order to see whether he was in a position to assert his claim on a Qoran, It was further alleged that the plaintiff appeared before him with a Qoran in hand and stated before the learned Judge that the money was reality due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The bam d judge has given a statement of what in fact took place. The learned Judge said that the statement in paragraph 9 was not correct. He said what happened was as follows: "I asked the Pleaders on both sides to produce 1heir clients on a certain day, if possible, so as to enable me to confront one with the other and to just questions to them upon the facts material to the case; on the day appointed or some other date the appellant (i.e., the plaintiff) came to Court, but not the other party and I asked the appellant (i.e., the plaintiff) if he could state by the Qoran if his case was true. He said he could do so. He had no Qoran with him at the time-as far as I could make out."