Successor Judge judgment, ex parte procedure, and affidavit evidence in civil trials were upheld as legally valid.

A successor Judge may pronounce judgment where the predecessor recorded evidence and heard arguments, because Order XVIII Rule 15 permits continuation from the stage left by the earlier Judge even after completion of trial. Once a suit has been proceeded ex parte and closed for judgment, the defendants cannot revive a lost right to cross-examine or address oral arguments. Affidavit evidence in an appealable suit remains admissible as examination-in-chief, provided the witness is available for cross-examination, and no prejudice is shown. A suit is not defeated merely because a proprietorship concern is described in its business name; at most, that is an irregularity in form. The plaintiff's passing-off relief and consequential decree were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a successor Judge could pronounce judgment after the predecessor had recorded the evidence and heard arguments, (ii) whether the Defendants, after the suit was proceeded ex parte and closed for judgment, retained any further right to cross-examine or address arguments, (iii) whether examination-in-chief by affidavit in an appealable suit required the deponents to enter the witness box and formally prove the affidavits, and (iv) whether the suit was defective for being instituted in the business name of a proprietorship concern.

Issue (i): whether a successor Judge could pronounce judgment after the predecessor had recorded the evidence and heard arguments.

Analysis: Order XVIII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers a successor Judge to proceed from the stage left by the predecessor when the latter is prevented by transfer or other cause from concluding the trial. The expression used in the rule is wide enough to cover even a case where evidence is complete and arguments have been heard but judgment remains to be pronounced. The principle that one who hears must decide does not displace this statutory scheme in the context of a civil trial governed by the Code.

Conclusion: The successor Judge was competent to deliver the judgment and the decree was not a nullity on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the Defendants, after the suit was proceeded ex parte and closed for judgment, retained any further right to cross-examine or address arguments.

Analysis: Once the hearing had concluded and the suit stood closed for judgment, Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had no application. Order XVII Rule 2 read with Order IX Rule 6 permitted the court to proceed ex parte when the Defendants failed to appear on the adjourned date fixed for the suit. The Defendants had already lost the opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witnesses and to advance oral arguments, and repeated interlocutory steps did not revive that lost right.

Conclusion: The Defendants had no subsisting right to reopen the hearing or insist on fresh oral arguments after the suit had been closed for judgment.

Issue (iii): whether examination-in-chief by affidavit in an appealable suit required the deponents to enter the witness box and formally prove the affidavits.

Analysis: Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that examination-in-chief shall be on affidavit in every case, while Order XVIII Rule 5 regulates the mode of recording evidence in appealable cases. These provisions were construed harmoniously to mean that affidavit evidence does not cease to be legal evidence merely because the witness has not separately proved the affidavit, so long as the witness is available for cross-examination. Since the Defendants did not avail themselves of the opportunity to cross-examine, no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The affidavit evidence was legally admissible and could be acted upon.

Issue (iv): whether the suit was defective for being instituted in the business name of a proprietorship concern.

Analysis: Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is enabling in nature for suits against a person carrying on business in a name other than his own. The cause title here showed the proprietor and the business name, and the description was at the highest an irregularity in form, not a jurisdictional defect. It did not go to the root of maintainability.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to fail on the ground of the manner in which the plaintiff was described.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material challenges. The decrees protecting the Plaintiff's passing-off rights and granting consequential relief were upheld, and the appeal stood dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A successor Judge may validly pronounce judgment from the stage left by the predecessor under Order XVIII Rule 15, and a party that has lost the opportunity to participate in the hearing cannot revive that right after the suit has been closed for judgment.

---