MOTIRAM KALARAM Vs. RATNA MUKUNDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision by the Plaintiff against the decree of the small cause Court Lashkar. The Plaintiff alleges that on 9 -3 -48 the Defendant pledged 300 Tolas of imitation silver and borrowed Rs. 300/ - on condition of repaying Rs. 303/ - after a fortnight. As the Defendant failed to repay the money the suit is filed to recover the amount. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. Consequently he has filed this revision.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the bond in dispute not being a document required by law to be attested it was not necessary for the Plaintiff to prove its execution by producing the attesting witness, and as the execution of the document has been proved by other evidence on record the trial Court has erred in law in dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff. The bond in dispute is no doubt attested by a witness. The learned Counsel for the applicant argues that as the attesting witness was dead he could not be produced. There is, however, no evidence on record to show that it was proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the attesting witness Govind Sumar was dead. We have, therefore, to consider whether it is necessary to produce the Resting witness in order to prove the execution of the bond.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the non -applicant argues that this Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact in revision. Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, gives power to this Court to interfere in the decision of the lower Court if the decision is not according to law. If therefore, a finding of fact is perverse this Court has power to interfere in the decision of the lower Court. In 'Na huram Shivnarayan v. Dhularam Hariram' : AIR 1921 Bom 407 (C), their Lordships of the Bombay High Court held' that although High Court would be averse to interfering under Section 25 on pure questions of facts, it cannot be said that the High Court has no power whatever of interfering with decisions on questions of fact. They further held that interference in regard to appreciation of evidence should, in general, only be exercised when there appears to the Court to be very clear case of misappreciation which has resulted in injustice to a party and makes the decree one that cannot be regarded by a revisional Court as 'according to law'. In 'Bhagwati Prasad v. Abdul Latif' : AIR 1933 All 373 (D) Kendall J. held that the High Court will not interfere in revision with the decision of the Lower Court on a pure question of fact unless the judgment of the lower Court is perverse. As pointed above the trial Court was of the opinion that the attesting witness was necessary to prove the execution of the document. But for that impression there is no doubt that the Court would have come to the conclusion that the execution of the document is proved that the claim of the Plaintiff is true. As the judgment of the lower Court is perverse I have no hesitation in holding that this Court can interfere in revision.