Adverse inference from non-examination in witness box can justify reversal where material facts lie within a party's special knowledge.

Failure of a party to enter the witness box on facts especially within that party's knowledge can justify an adverse inference, particularly where no rebuttal evidence is adduced. On the evidence led by the plaintiff and supporting witnesses, the transaction was treated as prima facie proved, and the absence of documentary proof did not make the oral evidence insufficient by itself. The trial court was found to have ignored the evidentiary consequence of the defendant's non-examination, rendering its dismissal of the suit perverse. On that basis, the revision was allowed and the plaintiff's claim decreed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an adverse inference was required to be drawn against the defendant for not entering the witness box, and whether the trial court's dismissal of the suit could be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: Where a material fact is specially within the knowledge of a party, failure by that party to appear in the witness box or adduce evidence in rebuttal permits an adverse inference against him. On the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and his witnesses, the transaction was prima facie established. The trial court erred in ignoring the evidentiary consequence of the defendant's non-examination and in treating the plaintiff's oral evidence as insufficient merely because no documentary proof was produced.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to succeed, the finding of the trial court was perverse, and the revision was allowed with the plaintiff's claim decreed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a fact is within the special knowledge of a party and that party, without explanation, does not enter the witness box to deny it, an adverse inference may be drawn and the resulting finding against the opposing party may be set aside in revision if it is perverse.

---