9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Recovery of debt for a bullock-cart transaction; Non-applicant denying transaction; Lack of documentary evidence; Non-applicant's failure to provide evidence; Presumption arising from non-examination of defendant; Acceptance of oral evidence in village transactions. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a revision petition under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The petitioner, referred to as 'the applicant,' filed a suit against the non-applicant for the recovery of Rs. 170, the price of a bullock-cart supplied to him. The non-applicant denied the transaction, leading to the trial court dismissing the suit due to lack of proof on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, filed the revision petition. In the case, the plaintiff testified that the non-applicant had purchased the bullock-cart on credit but failed to pay despite demands. The plaintiff was supported by two witnesses. The trial court dismissed the evidence due to minor discrepancies and lack of documentary support. However, it failed to consider that the non-applicant did not provide any evidence to deny the transaction. The judgment highlighted that when a party fails to provide evidence on a material fact within their knowledge, an adverse inference must be drawn against them. Citing legal precedents, the judgment emphasized the duty of a party to provide evidence in support of their case. Failure to do so would discredit their case. The judgment agreed with these observations and criticized the trial judge for not considering the presumption arising from the non-examination of the defendant. It stated that in village transactions, oral evidence should be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence. Consequently, the judgment held that the trial court's finding was flawed for ignoring the presumption in favor of the plaintiff, leading to a miscarriage of justice. It established that the defendant had indeed purchased the bullock-cart on credit and failed to pay. As a result, the revision petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court's decree and granting the plaintiff's claim of Rs. 170 with costs against the defendant. The defendant was ordered to bear their costs and pay the plaintiff's costs in both courts.
|
