Nathuram Shivanarayan vs Dhularam Hakiram Marwadi

Fawcett, J.—I concur. As regards the powers of interference vested in the High Court u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, I may add that a similar view has been taken by the Judicial Commissioner''s Court in Sind in Rupchand v. Minhomal (1914) 8 L.R. 164 At the same time I think that interference in regard to appreciation of evidence should in general only be exercised when there appears to the Court to be a very clear case of; misappreciation, which has resulted in. injustice to a party and makes the decree one that cannot be regarded by a revisional Court as "according to law."

In the present case the weight of the evidence as it stands was immensely in favour of the plaintiff, and is met only by an uncorroborated assertion that defendant had actually paid the money. Had the learned Subordinate Judge not considered that the plaintiff ought to have acted in a certain way for which there was certainly no obligation on the plaintiff, I do not imagine that he would have come to the conclusion that he did. viz., that the account books were unreliable. In my opinion the circumstances do not show that the evidence given for the plaintiff should not have been accepted. I, therefore, concur in the order proposed.