Ratna Pathan vs Para Sundaram

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.—The point for decision was whether the defendant executed the note sued on. The conclusion came to by the District

Munsif is that that document is not genuine. This is based upon the evidence of witnesses who, it is contended by the petitioner before me, all

speak to the execution of the document. In the note appended to the judgment it is stated that six witnesses were examined, five for the plaintiff and

one for the defendant. In the notes sent up to this Court the evidence of the sixth witness does not appear. As regards the fifth witness for the

plaintiff, the only portion of his evidence is that which stops with ""I am"" and is not taken any further. It is contended before me that the Judge did

not take an abstract of the deposition of the 5th witness, nor of the witness for the defendant The learned Counsel for the counter-petitioner is

unable to say whether this contention is well-founded or not. The records sent up to this Court do not show that the deposition of the defendant''s

witness was taken on any other day or that the Judge made any note of his deposition. Under these circumstances I must regard this procedure of

the District Munsif as illegal and as being opposed to Order XVIII, Rule 13. See also Chethru Gope v. Sri Charan Bhagat 9 C.W.N. 420. I must

set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct him to record as required by law and to pass a proper decree in the case.