Ponnammal Ammal vs Modern Stores and Others

Mack, J.—Petitioner is the second defendant in a small cause suit filed by the Modern Stores, Tirunelveli, to recover about Rs. 1,400 in

respect of cloth and other goods supplied to her brother the third defendant. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant. The third

defendant who had a power of attorney from his sister according to the plaintiff-shop, on the strength of this authority made those purchases for the

marriage of his own daughter, the first defendant. In the suit defendants 2 and 3 endeavoured to evade liability, second defendant alleging that her

brother had exceeded his powers and acted in these purchases for himself and so on. It is clear that subsequent to the marriage misunderstandings

broke out between brother and sister which sought a solution in the present suit.

This revision petition seeks to revise a rather curious finding pronounced by the learned District Munsif after plaintiff''s evidence was completed

as regards the admissibility of evidence relating to some private settlement of accounts as between the second defendant and the third defendant

which the former desired to advance in evidence. The District Munsif heard elaborate arguments and without giving an immediate ruling as regards

admissibility reserved judgment and after three days'' consideration delivered an order embodying the substance of the pleadings, the issues and

then lengthy reasons for holding that the evidence the second defendant sought to let in was inadmissible. He pronounced this order on 24th June,

1948 and adjourned the suit to 29th June, 1948. In the meantime the learned advocate for the second defendant filed a petition for stay which the

learned District Munsif was wrong in granting and this revision petition was filed to revise the finding of the learned District Munsif on this question

of admissibility of evidence. The suit was stayed pending disposal of this petition.

The procedure adopted by the learned District Munsif has to be deprecated. The trial of a suit should not be held up in this manner and a long

ruling given in the middle of the trial by an order setting out the pleadings, issues and so on, as in a judgment and then posting the Suit for further

hearing. A ruling as regards admissibility of evidence should be as brief as possible and once the ruling has been given, there should be no

interruption in the trial and the trial court should proceed with the trial to judgment without interruption. In its judgment the Court should

incorporate fuller reasons, if need be, for holding particular evidence to be in- admissible. Prima facie the order passed by the learned District

Munsif is rather an extraordinary one, reading, as it does, like a judgment, but with no finding on the issues and ending up with a mere rulingas

regards admissibility of some evidence.

I see no grounds for any interference in revision, it being apparent that defendants 2 and 3 are seeking in this suit to resolve some

misunderstanding between themselves which arose subsequent to the purchase of these goods from the plaintiff-shop. Liability has to be

determined by the relationship which existed between the parties vis-a-vis the shop at the time supplied these goods. The petition is dismissed with

costs of the first respondent with a direction to the District Monsif to take this suit now to as speedy a conclusion as possible.