AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This suit was brought to recover a sum of money due on an adjusted account, for which it is said that the Defendant signed a hathchitta. The District Judge, reversing the decision of the first Court, held that the evidence for the Plaintiffs was unworthy of credit, that the Defendant never signed the hathchitta, and that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove their case. He accordingly dismissed the suit. It is now contended that although the Plaintiffs may have (sic) adjustment and the (sic) ought to have determined whether the original debt, for which the hathchitta was given, had been paid off as the Defendant alleged; in other words, that he ought to have treated, it as a suit for the original debt.
The suit was based on the hathchitta, and the only question tried in the first Court was whether the Defendant had given it on the alleged adjustment. They were not even allowed to give evidence of the discharge of the original debt. If the ground now put forward succeeds, we should be obliged to remand the suit to the Court of first instance for trial de novo on matters which were never properly raised. This, having regard to the frame of the suit, we are not disposed to do. The appeal is dismissed with costs.