1965 (9) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r :-- 1. Whether the pronote in dispute was executed by defendant No. 1. without consideration? 2. Whether the assignment of the pronote in favour of the plaintiff is for consideration? 3. Whether the pronote was presented to defendant No. 1, before the filing of the suit? 4. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender, if so to what effect? 5. To what relief and against whom is the plaintiff entitled? 6. Relief 3. His judgment on the above-said points may be quoted verbatim. "Point No. 1 This point is decided in favour of defendant No 1. Point No. 2. This point is decided in favour of the plaintiff. Point No. 3. This point is decided in favour of the plaintiff. Point No. 4. This point is decided against defendant No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Code and must in all eventualities contain a statement by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes of the grounds on which the decree or order is passed by him. If any Court of Small Causes has ever thought that Rule 4 of Order 20 authorises it merely to give a final pronouncement on the -points of determination involved in a case in its judgment without anything more i.e., without giving any indication al all of the grounds on which the Judge has come to these findings, the sooner such an impression is removed the better. 8. Under Section 25 of the Act this Court can call for any case decided by a Judge of a Court of Small Causes for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any such case was according to law or not. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aim. This kind of an order can hardly be called a 'judgment' in the eye of law In cases where questions of law or mixed questions of law and fact are involved, a Judge of the Court of Small Causes should always set out at least so much of his reasoning on which his findings are based as would throw at least some light on the path by which he had reached those conclusions 9. If the Court below thinks that it has used the provisions of rule 4 of Order 20 of the Code for writing a judgment of this type, I would say, it has abused the said rule rather than used it. This kind of a blanket judgment on points of determination involving mixed questions of law and fact is least intelligible. In case of this type the High Court would have to....