MUNIYAPPA Vs. S.V. RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the Appellant, Defendant against the decision of the learned First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in. R.A. 100/ 54, sitting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. 66/53 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, and remanding the suit for fresh disposal.

(2.) THE Respondent was the Plaintiff and the Appellant the Defendant in O.S. 66/53. Plaintiff's suit was on a pronote. The defense was denial of execution and of receipt of consideration. The Defendant contended that he does not know English that the signature in English on the suit pro -note was not his and that he had not executed the pronote. This contention found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge who dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff took up this in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and remanded the suit for fresh disposal according to law. As against that order of remand, this appeal is filed.

(3.) THE contention urged on the side of the Appellant is that an application filed by the Plaintiff Respondent as per I. A. No. 1 under Order 41, Rule 27, praying for permission to adduce additional evidence was dismissed by the very Judge and that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to grant the same relief to the Plaintiff from was previously refused. We are of opinion that the dismissal of the previous application cannot ' be a bar to the order of remand No doubt, it is true that Plaintiff's prayer for adducing additional evidence was refused by the lower appellate Court by dismissing Plaintiff's application, L A. No. l. But it is not correct to say that that Court had no Jurisdiction to remand the suit for additional evidence because the previous application filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed.