TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 253/2004 and the application for adduction of additional evidence marked as City Civil Court Appeal Misc. Petition No. 239 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein, purported to be under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. 2. The parties entered into a partnership. The said partnership was reconstituted on 1.7.1994. Plaintiff -respondent contended that pursuant to the reconstituted partnership deed, the appellant had handed over certain works to the respondent-firm for its execution. It is also not in dispute that the appellant herein retired as a partner from the said Firm. However, it has been contended that despite his retirement, the appellant had requested the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgery and with the connivance of one Shri K. Ramesh Reddy and Mr. Y.S.Subramaniam, Managing Partner of the Respondent. It was also asserted by the appellant that he had retired from the partnership on 12.1.2000 and all the accounts between the parties were comprehensively settled which was also recorded in the deed of retirement. 7. The trial Court framed a general issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief and did not frame a specific issue with regard to the case of the appellant herein that the said cheque was an outcome of fraud and forgery. The learned trial Judge, however, dismissed the suit holding as under: (i) Defendant admits assignment of Khammam & Vijayawada Projects to the petitioner. (ii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, would submit that the High Court prior to passing of the said order did not give an opportunity to the appellant to file an objection in regard to the maintainability of the said application. 11. In any event, the learned Counsel would contend that the respondent's application being based on Clause (aa) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of order XLI of C.P.C., the High Court committed a serious error in relying upon Clause (b) thereof. 12. Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that if the case of the respondent as set out in his plaint vis-a-vis the findings of learned trial Judge are to be conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate Court was bound to consider the entire evidences on record and come to an independent finding for arriving at a just decision; adduction of additional evidence as has been prayed by the appellant was necessary. 17. The fact that the High Court failed to do so, in our opinion, amounts to misdirection in law. Furthermore, if the High Court is correct in its view that the plaintiff-respondent had proceeded on the basis that the suit in its entirely based on a cheque, wherefor, it was not necessary for it to file the books of accounts before the trial Court, finding contrary thereto could not have been arrived at that the same was in fact required to be proved so as to enable the appellate Court to arrive at a just conclusion. 18. T....