BRAJNANDAN SINGH Vs. RAMNATH MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The petitioner, who is an inhabitant of Sheopurdiar in the District of Balia in the United Provinces, at present residing at Hazaribagh in this Province, sued the defendant a Mali, also of Sheopurdiar, in the Small Cause Court at Hazaribagh on 7th December 1934, for a sum of Rs. 39-12-6, being principal and interest on a loan of Rs. 19, alleged to have been advanced at Hazaribagh on 5 January 1932. The defendant denied taking the loan from the plaintiff or even visiting Hazaribagh in January 1932, and contended that the suit had been instituted out of ill-feeling with a view to harass him. The Judge in an elaborate judgment found that the alleged transaction was not true and that the suit was groundless and fraudulent and dismissed it. This Court has called for the record of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree passed is according to law. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the decision ought not to stand in view of certain happenings in the Court which have or may have influenced the presiding Judge.

(2.) It appears that on receipt of the summons the defendant approached the District Magistrate of Balia with the allegation that the claim was fraudulent. In reliance upon instructions to District Officers in connection with inquiries into fraudulent claims against defendants in districts distant from their home where defence is difficult, the District Magistrate requested the Criminal Investigation Department of the Province, Bihar and Orissa, in which the suit was brought to make inquiry. The first date in the suit was 21 January 1935; but as the defendant did not appear the Judge adjourned the hearing to 25 February. The adjournment was in the usual course and was particularly proper in a case where the defendant lived at a great distance in another province. But on 14 February the Judge having received from the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, a letter requesting the Court to adjourn the suit for two months and to keep the record in safe custody, adjourned the hearing till 8th April, and sent an intimation of the fact to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. Here the action of the Judge was unsound. The record shows that the postponement was allowed without previous intimation to the Pleader of the plaintiff, the order merely being shown to him immediately after it had been passed. The presiding Judge ought not to have taken any judicial notice of the letter and in any event ought not to have passed any orders except in the presence of the plaintiff or his Pleader and preferably not until 25 February, which was the date fixed.

(3.) Subsequently adjournments were granted upon similar applications by letter by the Deputy Inspector-General and the defendant eventually appeared on 22nd July. Manifestly the plaintiff adduced proof more elaborate than is usual in such suits because of the intervention of the Criminal Investigation Department and in particular he applied on 27 April for summons on one Sheodutta Singh of Sheopurdiar. The suit came to trial on 19 August, and the plaintiff examined himself and four other witnesses to prove the transaction, two witnesses being Sheodutta Singh, who deposed that he came with the defendant to Hazaribagh, and Sant Singh, also of Sheopurdiar, who deposed that he had lent five rupees to the defendant to enable him to reach Hazaribagh in search of service, while the other evidence is to the effect that the defendant and his son did come to Hazaribagh and borrowed the sum of Rs. 19, though the entry in the plaintiff's book does not contain the signature or thumb-impression of defendant by way of acknowledgment. The defendant and a witness deposed that the defendant never visited Hazaribagh on the occasion mentioned and the Judge on a consideration of the evidence and the circumstances held that the transaction of loan alleged by the plaintiff had never taken place. We are informed that the Judge has been moved to make a complaint against the plaintiff of an offence under Section 209, Indian Penal Code. From a consideration of the facts set out and particularly of the action of the Court on 14 February and succeeding dates and of the judgment, elaborate though it is, it is not possible to be satisfied that the proceedings were according to law. The procedure in his Court was incorrect, and though the decree might not be vitiated for that reason only, there is at least some reason to believethat his judgment was, doubtless unconsciously, affected by the peculiar course which the proceedings took in his Court. We accordingly make the rule absolute, set aside the decree and direct that the suit be re-tried ab initio. There is no other Small Cause Court at Hazaribagh and at the suggestion of the learned advocate for the plaintiff, with which the learned Government advocate concurs on behalf of the defendant, we direct that the suit be transferred to the Court of Babu Umakanta Prasad Sinha, Munsif at Patna vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge. The costs in this Court will abide the result.