Parsotim Das vs Firm Jangli Sao and Another

Bucknil, J.—This is an application made under the provisions of Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, The matter is a vary trifling one but the circumstances are perhaps somewhat unusual; and although it is with very great reluctance that this Court interferes with the findings of a Small Cases Court yet there are occasions, and this may be one, when it seems to be that one should do so.

The circumstances are extremely simple. The plaintiff claims some money for goods sold and delivered. The articles sold were cloth. The plaintiff says that the defendant has signed an account-rendered statement in bahi and he produced this bahi himself purporting to have been signed by the defendant in the manner indicated showing a balance in his (the plaintiff''s) favour or between three and four hundred rupees. The defendant, however, denies his signature in this bahi and seems to have been able to satisfy the Judge to that effect by showing to the Judge certain signatures which are admitted to be his own and that the signature on the bahi was unlike these genuine signatures of his own and that the signature on the bahi was unlike these genuine signatures of his own; and thus persuaded the Judge to come to the conclusion which he did that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving his case satisfactorily. But in his decision it certainly would appear that the Small Cause Court''s Judge had accidentally, perhaps, omitted to consider the evidence which was adduced by the plaintiff in support of this allegation that the defendant had in fact put his hand on an account-rendered showing the balance, which I have already mentioned, in his favour. The plaintiff, according to the record, examined two witnesses. The first of these was quite clear as to the position; he ways definitely that the defendant about three years ago, had signed this bahi in his (the witness) own presence. In this way the evidence of the plaintiff was strongly corroborated. Now the Small Cause Court''s Judge in his summary of the evidence states that the plaintiff examined one witness only who had said that the defendant has signed the acknowledgment. Apparently the Small Cause Court''s Judge must have overlooked the fact that in addition to the witness, the gist to whose testimony I have already given, there was another witness, who also diposed that the defendant in fact signed the bahi. It would seem from the fact that the Small Cause Court''s Judge merely states that the plaintiff had called but one witness who simply said that the defendant had signed the bahi in question that he was referring to the second witness and had by mistake overlooked the fact that there was a far more important witness who had been called on behalf of the plaintiff and who bad staled definitely that the bahi had been signed by the defendant and in his (that witless) own presence. The position, therefore, of the plaintiff was infinitely stronger than would appear from the expressions which are used in Small Cause Court''s Judge decision, I think that on the face of the decision, the evidence of the plaintiff has not been sufficiently considered. I should be 10th to cone to any conclusion upon the matter myself. I think this is an instance in which it is necessary that the powers of this Court should be exercised and that the case should go back for rehearing preferably not before the same Small Cause Court''s Judge who has already dealt with the matter. The costs will abide the event.