Madras High Court
Srinivasa Ayyangar vs Pichumani Ayyangar on 18 March, 1932
Equivalent citations: AIR1933MAD164, AIR 1933 MADRAS 164
JUDGMENT Pandalai, J.
1. 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.