AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Wad, J.—Respondent No. 1, National Insurance Company Limited, has lied a suit against the petitioner, M/s. New Hawrah Transport Co. The plaintiff had insured the goods of respondent No. 2 which were to be transported by the defendant. The case is of the damage caused to the goods by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The Insurance Company appointed a company surveyor to assess the damage. I had called the original record and had gone through it myself.
On 25-11-86, the ADJ has recorded that before the plaintiff was examined, two witnesses of the plaintiff were examined as no objection was raised by the counsel for the defendant. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 points out that there is a mistake in the order. In fact, only one witness was examined and that was a formal witness, the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that it is contrary to Order 18 Rule 3. According to him before allowing any other witness to be examined before the Court ought to have recorded its reasons for this course to be followed.
The surveyor was a formal witness. He has to go to different places for performance of his duties. Therefore, for the sake of convenience he was examined on that date. The defendant did not raise any objection and the court permitted the other witness to be examined before the plaintiff. In the interests of justice, it is treated to be substantial compliance of Order 18 Rule 3. In fact, the D.B. in Maguni Dei Vs. Gouranga Sahu and Others, has followed the same course.
C.R. 39/87 is dismissed.