AMANTULLA MIA Vs. CHHATTOO RAM MUCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case out of which this Rule has arisen are these; The plaintiffs who are the petitioners and at whose instance the Rule has been issued brought a suit against the opposite party-defendants in the Court of the Munsif at Siliguri. The defendants raised the objection that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Kalimpong Court and, therefore, the matter was not triable by the Munsif at Siliguri. Evidence was ordered to be produced to decide this question of jurisdiction. On the day fixed for the hearing the defendants challenged the plaintiffs to make a special oath on the Koran agreeing that if the plaintiffs swore on the Koran that the transaction did not take place at Kalimpong they would be bound by the plaintiff's statement. The plaintiffs refused to make the special oath and on this the Court proceeded to order that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiffs to be presented before the Munsif at Kalimpong. His reasons for this order were that as the plaintiffs refused to make the special oath when requested to do so the presumption was that the transaction took place at Kalimpong and not at Siliguri as alleged by the plaintiffs. On appeal to the District Court this order was upheld and the plaintiffs have now moved this Court.

(2.) Now, this matter comes within Act X of 1873 (the Indian Oaths Act) which provides for a party making a special oath and also for the other party offering to be bound by the statement made on the special oath. Section 12 of the Act further provides that: "If the party or witness refuses to make the cath...he shall not be compelled to make it, but the Court shall record, as part of the proceedings, the nature of the cath or affirmation proposed, the facts that he was asked whether he would make it, and that he refused it, together with any reason which he may assign for the refusal."

(3.) In this case as far as can be seen the provisions of Section 12 have not been complied with, because there is nothing on the record to show why the plaintiffs refused to make the special oath. The learned Advocate who has appeared for the plaintiffs-petitioners contends that the Court was not entitled to presume because the plaintiffs refused to make the special oath that the plaintiffs case was false and that the case of their opponents was true.