High CourtsDivision Bench(1932) 03 MAD CK 0044

Srinivasa Ayyangar vs Pichumani Ayyangar

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 March 1932 · Citation: AIR 1933 Mad 164

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pandalai, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 183 words

Pandalai, J.—The decree in this small cause suit was passed by the Subordinate Judge on a promissory note and contemporaneous

agreement called a yadast. The defendant though served did not appear. The only ground urged in this petition is that the learned Judge erred in

admitting proof of the execution of the note and yadast by the affidavit of plaintiff''s next friend instead of calling him as a witness into the witness-

box and taking his deposition in open Court. No objection on the merits of the claim is raised. In my opinion the ground urged is without any

substance. Order 19, Rule 1 enables any Court to order that any fact may be proved by affidavit and the proviso enables the Court to compel the

attendance of the deponent in case of need. In Woodroffe and Ameer Ali it is stated that it is common practice to admit affidavits at the hearing

when there is no contention as to the facts. That is what happened in this case and I can see nothing illegal in it. The petition is dismissed with costs.