Back
1899 Supreme(Cal) 102
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sreemutty Nistariney Dassee - Appellant
Versus
Rai Nundo Lall Bose & Ors. - Respondent
Suit No. 311 of 1898
Decided On : 24-07-1899
Headnote:
Procedure - Judgment - Act-Section List - The court held that the settled practice is to accept a statement from counsel without requiring an oath, and refused to burden counsel with an oath unless overruled by a higher authority.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a statement from counsel at the bar, and the court discussed the appropriate procedure to be followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the settled practice is to accept a statement from counsel without requiring an oath, and refused to burden counsel with an oath unless overruled by a higher authority.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriate procedure to be followed when accepting a statement from counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the settled practice of accepting a statement from counsel without requiring an oath, unless overruled by a higher authority.
Final Decision: The court refused the application.
JUDGMENT
Stanley, J. - I shall ask for a statement from the Bar. I think that sufficient, and shall not require an oath. Pugh referred to Wilding v. Sanderson (1897) 2 Ch. 534, 539 and asked that Mr. Mittra might he sworn.
Stanley, J.
2. I am quite satisfied with the procedure in Kempshaw v. Holland 14 R. 336 C.A. (1895) and Hickmam v. Berens (1895) 2 Ch. 683, 641 The Court, as far as my experience goes, always accepts a statement from counsel at the Bar.
3. Mr. Mittra then made his statement from his place at the Bar.
4. Pugh in his reply referred to the procedure adopted and observed that in Swinfen v. Swinfen 1 C.B.N.S. 364, 374, 375 (1857), counsel filed affidavits.
Stanley, J.
5. I may as well say that until I am overruled by a higher authority I shall always make it a practice to accept a statement from counsel without burdening him with an oath. I always understood that was the settled practice and until the case of Wilding v. Sanderson (1897) 2 Ch. 534, 539 I was never aware that counsel were required to be sworn.
6. His Lordship then delivered judgment refusing the application.
