1. The appellants before this court were defendants in the trial Court. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,640 I. G. The suit was filed by a firm by name "Gonal Basangouda Basavarajappa Rajendra Ganj, Raichur" through owner Mahadevappa. The case of the plaintiff was that the father of the defendants was running a Dalal shop at Raichur and for the purposes of his trade, obtained the said loan, after signing in the account books of the firm; that the deceased father of the defendants did not return the loan in spite of several demands and after his death, since the defendants also failed to pay the amount, the suit against the defendants had to be filed. The main contention of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable as it was a partnership firm and Mahadevappa was not its sole proprietor. The defendants also denied that their deceased father took the loan.

2. The learned Civil Judge, after recording fully the evidence, dismissed the suit merely on the preliminary ground that the suit is not maintainable. He held that there was no evidence as to who were the partners of the said firm and there was nothing to show that the plaintiff had got any interest in the said firm. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge of Raichur permitted the plaintiff under O.41, R.27 of C. P. C. to produce the Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms which showed that Mahadevappa was one of the partners of the firm. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the lower court and remanded the case back for disposal according to law. This appeal is directed against the said order passed by the learned District Judge of Raichur.

3. Sri K. A. Swami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has urged two points before: (1) The suit has been brought on behalf of Mahadevappa and it cannot be said that the suit is brought on behalf of the firm. (2) The lower appellate court erred in taking additional evidence and the learned District Judge in doing so acted against the provisions of O.41, R.27 of C. P. C.

4. I will first deal with the second contention of Sri Swami. He argues that the learned District Judge acted in violation of the provisions of O.41 R.27 C. P. C. in admitting additional evidence in the appeal. This was not a case where the evidence admitted was not available in the trial court. By admitting the evidence, the learned District Judge permitted the plaintiff to patch up the weak points of his case and fill up the lacuna in his evidence. Though the defendants had raised objections in the written statement, the plaintiff failed to produce this evidence and this evidence has been made use of to fill up the lacuna and as such it should be ignored. He also contends that the learned District Judge has not recorded any reasons for permitting the production of this additional evidence. He has cited before me AIR 1931 PC 143; AIR 1951 SC 193; 1964 Mys LJ (Supp) 74; AIR 1957 SC 912 in support of his argument that the additional evidence should not be let in to patch up the weak points and fill up the gaps in the cases and this power should be very sparingly exercised by the appellate court after recording reasons.

5. Sri Basawalingappa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has relied on the later decisions of the Supreme Court and has contended that omission to give reasons does not vitiate the order. Additional evidence can be admitted to enable the court to pronounce judgment. In Venkataramaiah v. Seetha Rama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526 their Lordships of the Supreme Court at para 13 of the judgment have observed as follows:
"It is true that the word 'shall' is used in R. 27 (2), but that by itself does not make it mandatory. We are therefore of opinion that the omission of the High Court to record reasons for allowing additional evidence does not vitiate such admission."
Their Lordships have also observed at para 16 of the judgment as follows