VEMBU AMMAL Vs. ESAKKIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revising and setting aside the order of the District Munsiff of Tinnevelly dated 27 September, 1946, in I.A. No. 143 of 1946, a review petition, in S.C.S. No. 99 of 1946. The facts are briefly as follows:

(2.) S.C.S. No. 99 of 1946 was a suit filed by the petitioner Vembu Ammal, against the respondent, Esakkia Pillai, for recovering the amount due on a promissory note, Ex. P. 1, dated 17 Feburary, 1945, for Rs. 190 with subsequent interest and costs. Vembu Ammal had alleged that Esakkia Pillai had written the whole promissory note, Ex. P. 1, himself, and had signed in it, and that the amount was due. She had examined three witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 4, who swore that Esakkia Pillai had written the promissory note himself and signed in it. Esakkia Pillai had denied that he had written the suit promissory note or signed in it.

(3.) Mr. B.R. Charkrawarthi, the District Munsiff, who tried the suit first gave a decree to the petitioner for the suit amount and costs, on nth June, 1946. The respondent put in I.A. No. 143 of 1946 for reviewing the judgment delivered on nth June, 1946, by comparing his signature in a registered sale deed of November, 1945, with the signature in Ex. P. 1. He had not deposited the decree amount or got any order of the District Munlff regarding security. The petitioner raised her objection regarding this (under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) when the review petition came on for hearing before the subsequent District Munsiff, Mr. Balasubramanian Chettiar. The learned District Munsiff, who heard the review petition, remarked that there was little doubt, that, for the purpose of reviewing the judgment, security must have been furnished by Esakkia Pillai and accepted within thirty days from the date of the decree, evidently relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Assan Mohammed Sahib V/s. Rahim Sahib holding the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to be mandatory and not merely recommendatory. But he went on to say that his predecessor must have admitted the review petition without security probably under the mistake that no security was necessary for reviewing the judgment, and that, as the petition had been admitted and the order of admission had not been got quashed, he must proceed with it. He then went on to discuss the merits of the case. He held that the signature in Ex. P. 1 was not the signature of the respondent as it differed from the signature of the respondent in the registered sale deed of November, 1945. He also stated that the plaintiff (petitioner) had not let in any evidence regarding the consideration. In the end, he reviewed and set aside the judgment of his predecessor and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this petition. The respondent has remained absent in this Court though properly served.