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.

Khetra Nath Das Vs. Mohananda Das

Khetra Nath Das vs Mohananda Das

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 01, 1921
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/857118

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Practice - Procedure--Evidence--Bearing of suit without affording parties opportunity of examining their witnesses, propriety of. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khetra Nath Das

Respondent

Mohananda Das

Legal References

Reported In
65Ind.Cas.599

Excerpt

practice - procedure--evidence--bearing of suit without affording parties opportunity of examining their witnesses, propriety of. - 1. defendant no. 2 has obtained this rule against the decree of the small cause court judge of munshiganj, dacca, on the ground that he was not afforded a full opportunity of examining his witnesses. he filed his written statement on the 13th may 1921, when the case was adjourned till the 21st june 1921 for hearing. on that day both the parties applied for time on the ground that their witnesses had not come. the plaintiff said that his witness, sarat chandra acharjya, had not come with the necessary papers and another witness, rajiv, was seriously ill and could not some, defendant no. 2 applied for process against his witness, durga mohan chakravartty, on the ground that the summons had not been served on him on the previous occasion.2. the learned small cause court judge refused both the applications and proceeded with the hearing of the suit with the result that after examining the plaintiff and two witnesses and the defendant no. 2 he decreed the suit against that defendant.3. in the circumstances above set forth, we are of opinion that the learned judge ought to have allowed time to the parties to produce their evidence before him for the purpose of coming to a just decision in the case. we are not satisfied that the defendant was not prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the learned judge.4. we, therefore, make the rule absolute, set aside the decree passed by the small cause court judge of munshiganj, dacca on the 21st june 1921, and direct that the case be re-heard. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. Defendant No. 2 has obtained this Rule against the decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Munshiganj, Dacca, on the ground that he was not afforded a full opportunity of examining his witnesses. He filed his written statement on the 13th May 1921, when the case was adjourned till the 21st June 1921 for hearing. On that day both the parties applied for time on the ground that their witnesses had not come. The plaintiff said that his witness, Sarat Chandra Acharjya, had not come with the necessary papers and another witness, Rajiv, was seriously ill and could not some, Defendant No. 2 applied for process against his witness, Durga Mohan Chakravartty, on the ground that the summons had not been served on him on the previous occasion.

2. The learned Small Cause Court Judge refused both the applications and proceeded with the hearing of the suit with the result that after examining the plaintiff and two witnesses and the defendant No. 2 he decreed the suit against that defendant.

3. In the circumstances above set forth, we are of opinion that the learned Judge ought to have allowed time to the parties to produce their evidence before him for the purpose of coming to a just decision in the case. We are not satisfied that the defendant was not prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the learned Judge.

4. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute, set aside the decree passed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Munshiganj, Dacca on the 21st June 1921, and direct that the case be re-heard. No order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial