AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 227 wordsThe Judgment of the Small Cause Court is in accordance with the requirements of Order 20, Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
We are unable, with respect, to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in Kandasami Chetty v. Ramalinga Chetty (1920) 12 L.W. 285 so
far as his judgment purports to lay down as a rule of law anything different from Order 20, Rule 4(1) as to what Small Cause Court Judgments
should contain.
We think that that the learned Judge''s Judgment was based on his opinion of what the practice should be in such matter rather than on what the
law of procedure actually is. It seems to us that Order 20, Rule 4(1) is self-contained and does not need any expansion or explanation by Judicial
rulings.
Madras and S. M. Ry. Co. v. Matter Subba Rao 1 is an instance of interference by the High Court where a Small Cause Court''s decision was
reached without reference to material evidence. That is not the case here. It was open to the Small Cause Judge to discredit the promissory note
which bore no signatures but only what were alleged to be the defendants'' marks seeing that they both totally denied on oath having executed the
note.
We decline to interfere and dismiss this Civil Revision Petition with costs.