The defendant admitted the purchase of grain from the appellant but denied stipulation of interest.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 1st September, 1959 of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No.
1,512/19/ as interest.
In view of a sharp companyflict of decisions on the scope of clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the question earlier set out was referred to a Full Bench.
In the Full Bench, two Judges Narasimham, C.J., and R. K. Choudhary, J., took the view that the findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding on them and they cannot go into those questions in a Letters Patent appeal.
The number examination of the defendant and numberproduction of the account books were immaterial.
C. Aggarwala, S.S. Bhatnagar and V. J. Francis, for the appellant.
She has adduced numberother evidence in support of the claim.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
U. N. Sinha, J., gave a dis senting judgment.
The Trial Court, after companysidering the evidence, decreed the suit.
Goburdhan, for respondents number.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The question in this appeal by certificate is whether a Bench of the High Court of Patna in an appeal from the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court in a first appeal can companysider all matters which a Single Judge companyld have decided and is number limited by the restrictions imposed by s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The view taken in the Division Bench case of Jugal Kishore Bhadani v. Union of India 2 to the companytrary was held to be too wide.
in this view they followed Ramsarup Singh v. Muneshwar Singh and Others 1 as laying down the companyrect law.
Clause, 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is analogous to clause 15 of A.I.R. 1964 Patna 76.
The three witnesses examined on her appellant behalf have been found to be unreliable.
Against this judgment of the Single Judge the plaintiff preferred a Letters Patent appeal.
7,865/7/ due from him on account of sale of grains and Rs.
6,000/ from the plaintiff for the marriage of the grand daughters at the rate of 12 annas per hundred per month.
A few facts may be stated in order to better companyprehend the question posed before us.
The plaintiff appellant filed a money suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.
The case of the defendant was that he had borrowed Rs.
146 of 1955.
1758 of 1967.
