Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is true that although the learned Joint Judge held Exhibit 33 to be inadmissible in evidence yet he has considered the evidence bearing on the question of its genuineness and found that it is a "suspicious" document. That no doubt is a finding of fact and under ordinary circumstances we should have accepted it as a finding binding upon us in second appeal but the finding of the learned Judge that Exhibit 33 is a suspicious document appears to have been influenced by his view as to its admissibility. That his view of the inadmissibility of the document has influenced his appreciation of the evidence, is apparent from the fact that ho treats Exhibit 33 as a suspicious document, because, among other reasons, that document was not, whereas the bond upon which the suit was brought was, registered. Such a finding of fact is based upon an error of law as to an important document in the case. Again, that finding has been arrived at on the ground stated by the learned Joint Judge in his judgment that he does not "believe the evidence for the defendant, both oral and documentary." But it was not on that evidence alone that the defendant relied or was entitled to rely in support of her case. There was the undisputed fact, apparent upon the record, that whereas the defendant had affirmed on oath that the plaintiff had executed Exhibit 33 the plaintiff did not go into the witness-box and contradict the defendant's sworn testimony ; that he produced no accounts although he had on a previous occasion admitted that he had accounts ; and that there was no cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses so far as they swore that the plaintiff had executed Exhibit 33. Whether on a consideration of these circumstances the defendant's case must be held to be proved or not, it is not our province to say. That is for the Court which has to appreciate the evidence. But all we are concerned to point out is that the learned Judge has decided the appeal under the erroneous impression that beyond the oral and documentary evidence pro- duced by her the defendant had no evidence to support her case. The omission to consider this evidence coupled with the erro. neous supposition that the defendant's case solely rested on the evidence of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by her, is an error or defect in procedure which amounts to a substantial error of law affecting the merits of the case. Further, it is admitted that Bhaishankar is plaintiff's gumasta and that he managed the present suit for the plaintiff. It is also admitted and the record shows that he was cited as a witness both by the plaintiff and the defendant. But the defendant examined him as her witness. He swore that the plaintiff had executed Exhibit 33 ; and there was no attempt made for the plaintiff to cross-examine his evidence on that point. The Subordinate Judge, who heard his evidence, found that ho "was very reluctant in giving evidence in favour of the defendant and was inclined to favour the plaintff."