LAWS(PVC)-1934-9-8

DIST BOARD Vs. ATUL CHANDRA CHANDRA

Decided On September 20, 1934
DIST BOARD Appellant
V/S
ATUL CHANDRA CHANDRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, Second Court, Darbhanga under the following circumstances: The opposite party who is the plaintiff brought a suit against the District Board of Darbhanga and applied to the Munsif on 19 May 1934 for an order directing the defendant District Board to make discovery on oath of all the documents that were in the power and possession of the District Board reletting to the matter in question in the suit. On 11 June 1934 an affidavit of documents as required by Order 11, Rule 13 was made by one Thakur Prasad who is alleged to be the head clerk of the Samastipur Local Board.

(2.) The plaintiff objected to the affidavit on the ground that it should have been made by the chairman or the vice-chairman. The Munsif accepting the contention of the plaintiff directed the affidavit to be made by one of these two officers. On 27 June 1934 a petition was filed on behalf of the defendant asking the Court to permit one Babu Raghunandan Prasad who is the office superintendent of the District Board and who was alleged to have been given the power of attorney for looking after the cases and for making affidavits on behalf of the chairman and vice-chairman to make the affidavit.

(3.) The learned Munsif rejected the application holding that the chairman or the vice-chairman must make the affidavit and the present application is preferred against this order. The learned Munsif has referred to certain rules of the Supreme Court of England and points out in his order that the practice prevailing in that country with reference to a Municipal Corporation or limited company is that the affidavit of discovery must be made on behalf of the Corporation by the chairman or the executive officer. He has also referred to a decision of the Privy Council in Hentry Greer Robinson V/s. State or South Australia 1931 PC 254, in which Lord Blanesburgh refers to a case in which Lord Coleridge insisted on an affidavit being produced from the president of the Board of Trade himself.