Lachmi Chand Jhawar vs Hemendra Prosad Ghosh

Jenkins, C.J.—In my opinion the judgment of Mr. Justice Chitty should be affirmed. The only difficulty in this case is occasioned by the second paragraph in the Defendant''s written statement, for that gives some colour to the suggestion that sec. 92 of the Evidence Act is not applicable. But for that paragraph I think the Plaintiff''s claim would be barred by sec. 92 of the Evidence Act; and, even conceding that the second paragraph of the written statement entitles the Plaintiff to say that the whole agreement is not contained in the document, still the Judge has given effect to that admission and allowed the Plaintiff interest during the period for which he claims, at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. That appears to me to meet the justice of the case, and I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. Woodroffe, J.

I agree. I think that the evidence offered by the Plaintiff was excluded by the provisions of sec. 92 of the Evidence Act. The Plaintiff, however, can take advantage of the admission made by the Defendant in the written statement and he has been given the benefit of that by the decree under appeal. I agree, therefore, in the order passed.