ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J.
1. This is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.
2. The petitioner Gulla (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') filed a suit against the non-applicant Harisingh for recovery of a sum of Rs. 170 on account of the price of a bullock-cart supplied to him on 3-3-65. The non-applicant (defendant) denied the transaction and the trial Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit on the ground that the case of the plaintiff-applicant was not proved. Being aggrieved by this decision of the trial Court the plaintiff-applicant has filed this revision petition.
3. In this case plaintiff Gulla (P. W. 1) testified that the non-applicant had purchased a bullock-cart from him on credit for Rs. 170 agreeing to pay the price a couple of months later, but he failed to do so in spite of demands. He is corroborated on this point by two witnesses namely, Chhidi (PW2) and Ratanlal (PW3). The trial Court found fault with this evidence on the ground of certain minor 'discrepancies and also because there was no documentary evidence in support of the transaction. The Court, however failed to take notice of the very material fact that the non-applicant did not go into the witness box to deny the transaction in question on oath. In fact he adduced no evidence in support of his case,
4. When a material fact is within the knowledge of a party and he does not go in to the witness box without any plausible reason, an adverse inference must be drawn against him. A presumption must be drawn against a party who having knowledge of the fact in dispute does not go into the witness, box particularly when a prima facie case has been made out against him.
5. In Sardar Gur Bux Singh v. Gurudayalsingh, AIR 1927 PC 230 their Lordships of the Privy Council observed at pages 233 and 234 that it is the bounden duty of a party acquainted with the facts of the case' to give evidence in support of his case; failure to do so would be the strongest possible circumstance going to discredit the truth of his case. In Pranballav Saha v. Sin. Tulsibala Dassi, AIR 1958 Cal 713 the following observations were made while considering the effect of non-examination of a party:
"The very fact that the defendant neither came to the box herself nor called any witness to contradict evidence given on oath against her shows that these facts cannot be denied. What was prima facie against her became conclusive proof by her failure to deny."
I entirely agree with the aforesaid observations.
6. The learned trial Judge, therefor, committed a grave error in not taking into account the presumption arising out of non-examination of the defendant in this case while appreciating the evidence on record.
This has led to a grave miscarriage of justice.
7. In villages such transactions are often oral and are not supported by any documentary evidence. In any case the evidence adduced by the plaintiff ought to have been accepted in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with a finding of fact in revision, but as the finding of the trial Court is vitiated by 'ignoring the aforesaid presumption in favour of the plaintiff it must be set aside as not only unreasonable but perverse. I, therefore, hold that it has been duly established by the evidence on record that the defendant non-applicant had purchased a bullock-art for Rs. 170 on credit and he failed to pay the price thereof. The plaintiff ap-pliant is, therefore, entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 170,
8. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the decree of the trial Court is hereby set aside. The plaintiffs claim for Rs. 170 is decreed with costs against the defendant non-applicant. The non-applicant shall bear his own costs and pay, that of the plaintiff in both the Courts. Counsel's fee according to stale, if certified.