JUDGMENT

Sharma J (delivering oral judgment):

This is one of the cases where I had called for the records under s. 32 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 for purpose of 'satisfying myself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the decision of the learned Magistrate. The plaintiff sued the defendant for repayment of a sum of $142.80 interest and costs on a promissory note executed by the defendant. The plaintiff in her statement of claim admitted that she was a licensed moneylender. The defence filed by the defendant denied having borrowed any money from the plaintiff but admitted having taken the loan in question from a man whose name he was unable to furnish. The suit came up for hearing before the learned Magistrate on the 9 January 1971 who purported to have acted, as he says, under O. 1 r. 2 of the Subordinate Courts Rules and he, without taking any evidence from the plaintiff or her witnesses, started to record a swam statement from the defendant only in answer to questions put by him. The record shows that no opportunity even was given to the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant. In the first instance I am at a loss to understand what relevance O. 1 r. 2 of the