Sinnetamby V. Vallinatchy Et Al.

Present : Mr. Justice Wood Renton.

SINNETAMBY v. VALLINATCHY et al.

C. R., Batticaloa, 11,445.

Oaths Ordinance, 1895," ss. 8 and 9-Refusal of plaintiff to take decisory oath after having agreed to take it-Dismissal of action in consequence.

    Where a party agreed to be bound by a decisory oath and then failed to take it, and where the form of oath nor its nature was stated,-

    Held, that the case fell under sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Oaths Ordinance, No. 9 of 1895, and that the Commissioner should therefore have proceeded to record the reason for the refusal as therein provided.

    THIS was an action on a promissory note, in which the endorsee sued the makers. The makers denied the endorsement, and pleaded payment to the payee. On the day of trial all that transpired was as follows:-

    23rd August, 1906. Parties present save first defendant.

    D. W. Kadramer, for the plaintiff.

    Guruswamy (with him Kandappa), for defendants.

    Gurusivamy is prepared on behalf of his client to let judgment be entered, if plaintiff would take a decisory oath.

    The plaintiff is prepared to do so.

G. W. WOODHOUSE,
Commi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document