ORDER : This is a revision application by Central India Motors, Bhopal, plaintiff against the order of Shri B.N. Saxena, First Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, exercising powers under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff firm was not proved to have been duly registered and consequently under S. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act could not sue in the name of the firm. 2. On the principle of O. 41, R. 27, Civil P.C., the applicant wants to lead additional evidence to show that the plaintiff-firm had been duly registered and consequently the suit should not have been dismissed on this technical ground. The certified copies filed with the revision application were not strictly in compliance with Indian Partnership Act and an opportunity was sought for to produce before this Court a certified extract of the Register of Firms maintained by the Registrar of firms. This has now been done. Consequently if this document can be taken into consideration it will have to be held that the plaintiff-firm was a registered one and was competent to sue in the name of the firm. Thus the only point for consideration is if the plaintiff should be permitted to lead additional evidence, either in this Court or in the trial Court after the suit is remanded for fresh hearing on merits. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the non-applicants, G.P. Shrivastava and Rajmal, that O. 41, R. 27, Civil P.C. could not be availed of by a party which had been negligent and did not adduce complete evidence, may be, on the wrong advise given by its counsel. Reliance is placed upon the Bombay case of - 'Malappa Minappa v. Venkaji Appaji', AIR 1930 Bom 272 (A). Order 41, B. 27, Civil P.C., permits a party to adduce additional evidence if the trial Court had wrongly refused to admit such evidence or if the appellate Court considers that evidence necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. This rule would, therefore, clearly indicate that the present applicant cannot as a matter of right claim admission of additional evidence. This rule would, therefore, clearly indicate that the present applicant cannot as a matter of right claim admission of additional evidence. But if this Court thinks that, the additional evidence is necessary to pliable it to pronounce judgment or if any other substantial cause exists, the additional evidence can be admitted by this Court on the principle of O. 41, R. 27, Civil P.C., or can remand the case for fresh heading when additional evidence can be adduced. It is true that the Courts of law should not give any benefit to a negligent party which did not take proper steps for prosecution of the case. But at the same time the courts of law should not attach undue importance to technicalities and dismiss a suit simply because certain compliance of law had not been made, or though sufficient evidence existed, it was not adduced. In case a very strict view is adopted it will happen, that the Courts of law would become like penal courts and will not be administering justice in the case. In the present case the applicant was handicapped in view of the fact that no proper issues had been framed by the Judge, Small Cause Court. I have considered this part of the matter and find that in Civil Procedure Code and also in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act there is no provision to prohibit the framing of issues. On the other hand, it is provided in S. 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act that as far as possible the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the trial of cases under that Act. In the Code of Civil Procedure special procedure for suits of Small Cause Court's nature has been provided at two stages, firstly at the time of issue of summons and secondly at the time of pronouncement of judgment. The Proviso, to Order 5, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, lays down that in Small Cause Court suit the date fixed would be for final disposal (and not for the framing of issues only). Similarly, while referring to the contents of the judgment it is laid down in O. 20, R. 4 that judgments in Small Cause Court suits will contain the points for determination and the decision thereon. Order 14, Civil Procedure Code, relates to the framing of issues. Similarly, while referring to the contents of the judgment it is laid down in O. 20, R. 4 that judgments in Small Cause Court suits will contain the points for determination and the decision thereon. Order 14, Civil Procedure Code, relates to the framing of issues. It is nowhere laid down in the Civil Procedure Code that in Small Cause Court suits issues need not be framed nor the framing of issues is prohibited in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Thus in my reading of the Code and also the Act it is necessary that the Judges of Small Cause Courts should frame issues before recording evidence of parties so that they may know which matters are in dispute and on which points they have to adduce evidence. Framing of issues is also necessary to narrow down the points in dispute. Similarly, in cases where the facts are somewhat complicated the Small Cause Court can direct the parties to adduce further and full particulars and can also examine them under O. 10, Civil P.C. 4. In the present case, no issues had been struck though it may be added that in the written statement the first point taken was that in view of S. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act the suit was not maintainable. In case the Court had framed issue on this point before recording, evidence the plaintiff would have known that this point was being pressed and would have applied for time to produce documentary evidence to meet this point. 5. In this connection it was also mentioned before me that two similar, suits had been filed by the plaintiff-firm and in one of them the documentary evidence had been adduced. It was suggested that the plaintiff was given wrong advice or was under mistaken impression that the documents filed in one case could be used in the other to give a finding in his favour. This contention cannot have any force but can be taken into consideration in taking a lenient view in his favour. 6. In AIR 1930 Bom 272 (A) observations made are of a general nature but a perusal of the reported case will show that even if the additional evidence was allowed it would not have helped the appellant. This contention cannot have any force but can be taken into consideration in taking a lenient view in his favour. 6. In AIR 1930 Bom 272 (A) observations made are of a general nature but a perusal of the reported case will show that even if the additional evidence was allowed it would not have helped the appellant. Further the additional evidence sought to be adduced was in conflict with the oral assertion of the defendant himself, who had deposed that he had no evidence except a document which had already been produced. If after such a clear statement another document was produced it will always be viewed with suspicion. Further, the additional evidence sought to be adduced in that case was on merits and not on technical or legal matter in issue. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to - 'Vishnu Ramkrishna v. Nathu Vithal', AIR 1949 Bom 266 (B) in which the appellants were permitted to examine another attesting witness of the will even though he was available during the hearing and was not examined. In this case additional evidence was admitted by the High Court to satisfy itself whether the will was duly executed or not. Similarly, in the present case the additional evidence to be adduced will be to ascertain if the plaintiff-firm is in fact a registered body or not. 8. To sum up, the present is a case where, additional evidence should be permitted to be, brought on record and the plaintiff's suit should not be dismissed on a technical ground simply because it failed to file necessary extract of the Register of Firms. 9. The revision application is hereby allowed the order under revision is set aside and the suit is remanded to the lower Court for rehearing according to the law. The plaintiff-firm would be entitled to file a certified extract of the Register of Firms in the lower Court if this point is still pressed by the non-applicants. Considering that the plaintiff-firm had been negligent it is further ordered that the applicant would bear its costs of this Court and would be liable for the payment of costs of the non-applicant of the revision. Costs of the trial Court would abide the final decision of the case. Revision allowed.