KISAN GHULE Vs. PURANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have confined the arguments to grounds 8, 9 and 10 of the memorandum of appeal as I thought that the trial of the case has been very improper and full of irregularities of procedure.

(2.) THE suit was based on a mortgage and not on account-books but plaintiff desired to tender his relevant account book entries as evidence and, therefore, mentioned them as pieces of evidence in his list of reliance. The defendants taking advantage of this mention applied for inspection of plaintiff's account-books with a, view to extract their defence out of them. The plaintiff protested but notwithstanding his protest the inspection was allowed and the defendants took inspection and filed an additional written statement admitting some and disputing certain other items entered in the books. But they did not make their defence intelligible by filing extracts of the relevant entries to which the same related.

(3.) THEN again, even though the plaintiff pointed out the omission of the Court below to examine him in answer to the defendants' additional rejoinder filed after taking inspection of plaintiff's books of account, the Court below failed to rectify its own mistake, and tried to technically shift the error on to the shoulders of the plaintiff. This has naturally ended in a disaster to the plaintiff's cause. The Court ought to have re-opened the case and examined the parties for focussing points of controversy between them and given them opportunity to substantiate their respective cases.