Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Chauthi Singh Vs. Emperor

Chauthi Singh vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 01, 1937
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/459729

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - I however note that the District Magistrate is perfectly right in holding that the Medical Officer was bound to reply to all relevant questions put to him. Medical Officers, like other persons, are bound to attend Court on receipt of summons and to give evidence if required by the Court.

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chauthi Singh

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1937All768

Excerpt

- - i however note that the district magistrate is perfectly right in holding that the medical officer was bound to reply to all relevant questions put to him. medical officers, like other persons, are bound to attend court on receipt of summons and to give evidence if required by the court.orderniamatullah, j.1. in view of the compromise no orders are necessary. i however note that the district magistrate is perfectly right in holding that the medical officer was bound to reply to all relevant questions put to him. he did not probably realise that refusal to answer questions allowed by the court is contempt of court liable to be punished. in this case the magistrate allowed himself to be weighed down by the government notification on which the medical officer took his stand and did not apply his mind to the more important question, viz. whether the fact sought to be elicited in cross-examination was relevant. medical officers, like other persons, are bound to attend court on receipt of summons and to give evidence if required by the court. they cannot refuse to give evidence for reasons which they may consider to be sufficient, but they should represent to the court as regards fees payable to them. any dictation of terms on which they would give evidence is unnecessary and should be avoided. with these remarks i direct the record to be returned.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Niamatullah, J.

1. In view of the compromise no orders are necessary. I however note that the District Magistrate is perfectly right in holding that the Medical Officer was bound to reply to all relevant questions put to him. He did not probably realise that refusal to answer questions allowed by the Court is contempt of Court liable to be punished. In this case the Magistrate allowed himself to be weighed down by the Government notification on which the Medical Officer took his stand and did not apply his mind to the more important question, viz. whether the fact sought to be elicited in cross-examination was relevant. Medical Officers, like other persons, are bound to attend Court on receipt of summons and to give evidence if required by the Court. They cannot refuse to give evidence for reasons which they may consider to be sufficient, but they should represent to the Court as regards fees payable to them. Any dictation of terms on which they would give evidence is unnecessary and should be avoided. With these remarks I direct the record to be returned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial