https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303573 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. en-us Mon, 27 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:34:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303573 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303573