Attorney General v Prasad [1975] FijiLawRp 18; [1975] 21 FLR 120 (17 October 1975)

[1975] 21 FLR 120

SUPREME COURT

Appellate Jurisdiction

ATTORNEY- GENERAL

v

ANAND PRASAD

Mishra J.

17th October, 1975

Practice and procedure — failure by counsel for landlord through inadvertence to adduce evidence in support of claim for rent due — submission by defendant of no case to answer — subsequent application to call fresh evidence after case closed — whether proper for Court to grant such application.

In an action for rent owing by the respondent to the Government of Fiji, counsel for the appellant, due to an advertence, failed to adduce any evidence of how the rent had accrued and how the rent set out in the writ was made up. The respondent submitted no case to answer and called no evidence. Counsel for the appellant then applied for leave to call fresh evidence but leave was refused.

Held: The respondent had already closed his address when the appellant made his application. To grant such an application would have destroyed the submission already made and would have resulted in grave in to the respondent.

Case referred to:

Murray v Figge [1975] ALR 612.

Appeal against the decision of the Magistrate's Court dismissing the appellant's claim in respect of rent due.

M. J. Scott for the appellant.

H. M. Patel for the respondent.

MISHRA J.: [17th October 1975] —

This is an appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court Suva, dismissing the appellant's claim for $160.25 in respect of rent allegedly owing by the respondent to the Government of Fiji.

The defendant, by his defence, denied owing this, or any, sum to the appellant.

There was uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the respondent, a public servant, occupied a house at Navua belonging to Government of Fiji for some time in 1972. There was also uncontradicted evidence that during this period no rent was paid in respect of this house. Evidence was led to show that, when a public servant occupied a house belonging to Government, rent payable by him was deducted from his salary. In this ease no deductions had been made from the respondent's salary during the relevant period. No evidence, however, was led to show what rent was payable by the respondent and how it was calculated. There was no evidence even of the salary received by the respondent.