Amrita Shaha vs Panchkori Shaha

This rule was obtained by the Plaintiff to show cause why the order of the Munsif exercising the powers of the Small Cause Court Judge should not he set aside. Neither the Defendant nor anyone oil his behalf shows cause.

The suit was to recover money due under a bond and it has been dismissed as time-barred. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had before the time within which the suit might be brought paid him a certain sum as interest. The Munsif says that the part payment of Its. 4 is proved by the Plaintiff but as the entry of the payment was not in the handwriting of the person who made the payment, it was not admissible and he dismissed the suit. The Munsif has not complied with the provisions of sec. 189, C.P.C, which requires that he should make a memo-rand urn of the substance of the evidence of each witness. He has given merely the shortest abstract of what he calls the substance of the evidence of the Plain! ill and his witnesses. Then it is not recorded whether this part payment was made on account of principal or interest. The PI an tiff in his plaint alleged that the payment was made on account of interest and in his affidavit before us he also says that it was on account of interest. The Munsif not having recorded on what account the payment was made, it is difficult to see why he assumed it to be a payment on account of principal and not on account of Interest, We set aside the decree of the Munsif and remand the case. The Munsif must decide whether the alleged payment was made and whether it was a payment on account of principal or interest and, if payment on account of interest whether it prevents the claim of the Plaintiff from being barred. We make no order as to costs.