SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1927 Supreme(Rang) 135

MAUNG BA
K K S R Firm – Appellant
Versus
Maung Kya Nyun – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Maung Ba, J - This is an application for a certificate under Clause 13, Letters Patent, that it is a fit case for appeal.

2. As the point involved is one of construction to be put upon the phrase " any other sufficient reason " used in Rule 1, Order 47, Civil P.C., I have allowed both sides to argue that point. The applicant Chettyar firm brought a suit against the respondents on a promissory-note, and the respondents denied execution of that note. In the evidence tendered by the applicants it was alleged that the writer of the note was one Ma Tin U, but the applicants made no attempt to produce her. Consequently the respondents applied to the trial Judge for an adjournment to enable them to produce her in order to rebut the evidence tendered against them. The learned Judge accordingly adjourned the case. The 'respondents took out a summons, but as the witness was not to be found at her old address the summons was returned unserved. The respondents then applied to the Judge to give them another adjournment to enable them to make further efforts to secure that witness. But the Judge, who was presumably actuated by a desire to show short duration, refused to grant any more adj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top