DALBARA SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Court's below whereby suit to the extent of Rs. 5200.00 has been decreed against him.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS , Mohinder Singh filed suit against defendant, Dalbara Singh for recovery of Rs. 6420.00 on account of principal and interest on the basis of two pro-notes; one dated 17. 6. 1974 for Rs. 3000.00 and the other dated 17. 7. 1974 for Rs. 2200/ -. On contest, defendant denied the consideration of pro-notes and also the liability to pay interest. He alleged that plaintiff is a money-lender. Trial Court found the plaintiff to be a money lender and therefore, he was held not entitled to interest and costs of the suit. However, on finding that promotes had been executed for a consideration, plaintiff was granted decree for Rs. 5200/ -. Being aggrieved against the same, defendant filed an appeal. While the appeal was pending before the first appellate Court, plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, requesting that he may be permitted to produce registration certificate showing that plaintiff had been registered as a money-lender. He submitted that he is registered as money-lender under the Punjab Registration of Money Leaders Act. First appellate Court allowed the application and on appreciation of evidence on record, including the registration certificate showing that plaintiff had been registered as money lender, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel and going through the record, I am of the view that there is no merit in appeal. Under Clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, appellate Court can receive additional evidence not only when it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce a judgment, but also for any other substantial cause. There may be cases where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the basis of evidence on record, but still considers that in the interest of justice, something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. In the present case, one of the issues was whether the plaintiff is money-lender without a valid licence. Money Lender's registration certificate was thus, necessary for proper decision of the said issue. By taking additional evidence, the appellate Court has not exercised its discretion arbitrarily and so, no interference is called for in second appeal.