🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Srimati Jamila Khatun and Others Vs Gour Mohan Dutta

Date of Decision: May 4, 1925

Acts Referred: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47

Citation: AIR 1926 Cal 979 : 91 Ind. Cas. 675

Hon'ble Judges: Pearson, J; Babington Newbould, J

Bench: Division Bench

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Noakhali affirming the order of the Munsif, First Court, Noakhali, dismissing an

application u/s 47 of the C.P.C. The petitioner who is the appellant was examined on commission from 9-30 A.M. till 1 P.M. She then refused to

answer any more question put to their in cross-examination on the ground that her head was puzzled. The commission then closed the examination

and submitted his report and the Munsif held that she deserved examplary punishment as a witness for her conduct and thought that the mere

discarding of her evidence would be sufficient punishment. The learned District Judge has held and we agree with him that this order of the Munsif

was wrong and the evidence should not have been discarded. He has held, however, that the Munsif was right in rejecting the application on

account of what subsequently happened. At a subsequent date when the case came up for hearing the petitioner had some witnesses present but

declined to examine them. The learned District Judge is of the opinion that had the evidence of the witnesses present been taken they might have

established her case and that she should have examined these witnesses before appealing on the ground that her own deposition was wrongly

excluded.

2. We are unable to agree with this view of the learned District Judge. When her own evidence, which was presumably the most important

evidence on her behalf, was discarded it may well have been useless for her to proceed with the examination of the other witnesses. The only way

by which she could get the wrong order rejecting her deposition set aside was by appealing against the order rejecting her application and she was

well advised to have such an order passed as soon as possible.

3. We accordingly allow this appeal. We, set aside the order of the District Judge and also the order of the Munsif rejecting the petitioner''s

application and the order of the Munsif dated the 6th December 1922, discarding the petitioner''s evidence and, direct that further enquiry be made

into the matter.

4. The appellant will get her costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court. We assess the hearing fee at 2 gold mohurs.

Download Judgement PDF