RAMAGOUDA Vs. GONHAL BASANGOUDA BASAVARAJAPPA RAJENDRA GUNJ RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(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 Order 41 Rule 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. The 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 Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C.