A court must give findings on each of the issues framed in a suit and consider all the grounds raised in an application for review before dismissing it.

S. RANGARAN, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his suit by the learned Commercial Sub- Judge (Mrs Santosh Duggal) to review which an application was also made; a notice of the same was ordered by Mrs. Santosh Duggal herself, but the application for review was subsequently dismissed by Shri P. K. Bahri, her successor.

( 2 ) THE suit was laid by the plaintiff/petitioner, Director of a company registered under the Companies Act of 1956, against the defendant (Mangat Ram alias Mangtu) in respect of a borrowing in the sum of Rs. 4550. 00 (originally wrongly mentioned in the plaint as Rs. 4500. 00 but since corrected) in respect of which a hundi was said to have been executed on the same date, namely, 17th March, 1966, for a period of 180 days commencing 17th March, 1966 and expiring on the 12th September, 1966. The hundi was presented for payment through a Notary (P. W. 2), who was examined only in part and the defendant refused to pay the amount due. The suit was laid for recovery of the said sum as on a hundi, a negotiable instrument, for recovery of Rs. 4840. 00 with interest at 12% per annum under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. Leave to defendant was granted because the defendant not only denied his signature on the hundi but also denied the borrowing.

( 3 ) IT would be seen from the Notary Public s certificate dated 18-12-1966 (Ex. P. 1) that the defendant who was duly identified, not only admitted his identity as the executant but also the execution of the hundi and his liability to pay the amount thereunder; when asked to pay the same, he expressed his inability to pay for some time; asked how much time he wanted he said he was unable to say. He was also asked to state in writing, over his signature, all he had thus stated, but he declined.

( 4 ) THE following issues were framed: 1. Whether the defendant executed the promissory note in suit in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP 2. If so, whether this pronote is without consideration ? OPD 3. Whether the promissory note in suit is properly stamped ? If not, to what effect ? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender? If so, to what effect? OPD. 6. Relief.

( 5 ) LATER on the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to describe the negotiable instrument as a promissory note instead of hundi; in addition, as noticed already, a correction was also sought in the impugned claim. Both these amendments were allowed by order dated 5-9-1967. The evidence of the handwriting expert (Shri K. N. Johar) as Public Witness. I was recorded and thereafter the Notary Public himself was called and examined as Public Witness. 2. The cross-examination was not over. There seems to have been an attempt to compromise the matter at that stage. There having been no compromise a further application was made on 20-8-1968 for the purpose of amending the plaint including a plea, in the alternative, basing on the original cause of action. But this amendment was, however, disallowed by Mrs. Santosh Duggal by her order dated 18-9-1968. Not only did she disallow the amendment but also dismissed the suit in toto by the same order without writing a separate judgment in the suit and even without giving findings on each of the issues as required by Order 20 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code. Mrs. Santosh Duggal observed, in the course of her order, which on its face does not amount to a judgment, that the payment and the execution of the hundi were simultaneous, that is, the execution of the negotiable instrument was at the same time when the loan was advanced and, therefore, in such a situation the plaintiff could not fall back on the original consideration and section 91 of the Evidence Act would be such evidence. She further observed that the plaintiff s counsel had himself conceded that the pronote (as it had been described by that time) in suit was inadmissible in evidence and tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document