GOLAM SOBHAN Vs. ALI HOSSAIN BAHADDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 18 July 1921 this Rule was issued at the instance of the defendant calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the decision of the Additional District Judge of Chittagong should not be set aside and that of the Munsif dated the 15 September. 1919 restored. The suit was brought on a hand-note. The defence was that there was no consideration. The First Court held in favour of the defendant's contention namely, that there was no consideration, and the suit was dismissed. The lower Appellate Court, while stating that the defendant's evidence that no money passed was stronger than the plaintiff's evidence, allowed the appeal on the ground that no evidence was admissible to show that there was no consideration, having regard to the terms of Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

(2.) The learned Additional District Judge, it would appear, failed to take into account the provisions of provision (1) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances. I am asked to interfere under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P. C., on the ground that the Additional District Judge asked with material irregularity in excluding the evidence adduced by the defendant as to the lack of consideration. On behalf of the plaintiff it is said that, under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P. C., it is not open to this Court to interfere and I have been referred to the cases of Amir Hassan Khan V/s. Sheo Baksh Singh 11 C. 6 : 11 I.A. 237, 4 Sar. P.C.J. 559; Rafique and Jackson's P.C. No. 83, 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S. 7.0), Kristamma Naidu V/s. Chapa Naidu 17 M. 410 (F.B.); 6 Ind. Dec. (n.s. 234.) and Ramgopal V/s. Joharmal 15 Ind. Cas.547 : 39 C. 473 as deciding that under Section 115 mere error of law does not give the Court jurisdiction to interfere. Now, it seems to me that the Additional District Judge has erred in law in this case in excluding the defendant's evidence. But, even so, I do not think that I have jurisdiction to interfere, I do not think, having regard to the decisions, that a mere error of law, as is the case here, justifies the Court in interfering under Section 115, Civil P. C..

(3.) The result is the Rule is discharged with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.