JUDGMENT S. K. Jha, J. This is an application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, by the plaintiffs of Small Cause Court Suit No. 8 of 1974 decided by the Subordinate Judge at Begusarai, exercising the powers of Small Cause Court. By the judgment dated 29.7. 1975 in the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs-petitioners 1 to 4 claiming to be the partners of a registered firm-M/s Ashok Industries, had instituted a suit for realisation of Rs. 541/-as compensation for short delivery of Chanti Masoor (variety of pulses). The Court below had formulated seven points for decision in this case namely :- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable ? (ii) Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action or right to sue ? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (iv) Whether valid notice under section 78 B Indian Rly Act, and notice under sec. 80 C. P. C. were duly served on the defendants? (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as claimed? (vi) To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? (vii) Whether the suit is barred under section 69(2) of the Partnership Act? The findings recorded by the court below were all in favour of the petitioners, excepting with regard to point no. 7. On that point it was held by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, that although it had been proved by production of acknowledgment of registration of firms (Exhibit 7) that petitioner no. 5 was a registered firm, it had not been proved by any evidence that petitioners 1 to 4 were the partners of that registered firm. As such the suit was barred under section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the court below had completely ignored the evidence of petitioner No.1 in the court below which was absolutely ex-parte and which went to show that petitioners 1 to 4 were the members of the registered firm, petitioner no. 5. Apart from that, an application has been filed under Order - 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, for taking into additional evidence the register maintained under section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which went to show that petitioners 1 to 4 were the partners of the registered firm, petitioner no. 5. 5. Apart from that, an application has been filed under Order - 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, for taking into additional evidence the register maintained under section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which went to show that petitioners 1 to 4 were the partners of the registered firm, petitioner no. 5. In the view that I am going to take, it is not necessary to take into additional evidence the aforesaid extract of the register of firm. The evidence that learned counsel for both the parties placed before me is actually only by two persons, one on behalf of the petitioner and the other of the Railway administration. Petitioner no. 1 who was examined as petitioners' witness no. 1 in the court below, has stated in his cross-examination categorically and expressly that petitioners 1 to 4 were the members of the registered firm, petitioner no. 5. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Evidel1ce of petitioner NO. 1, which has been elicited in the cross-examination on behalf of the opposite party, is wholly ex parte. It is curious why the learned Small Cause Court Judge has not even mentioned or referred to this piece of evidence. If there were any doubt or ambiguity with regard to any such oral evidence on record, I would have had no hesitation in taking into additional evidence the extract from the register of firms, but the evidence being exparte and that too at the instance of the opposite party themselves, there is no reason why the court below should have ignored to consider that piece of evidence and I am quite sure that the evidence exparte as it is, if considered by the Court, below, would have led to the only conclusion that it had been amply proved that petitioners 1 to 4 were the members of petitioner no. 5. That being so, in the interest of justice I do not think it at all necessary to remand the case back to the learned Small Cause Court Judge. To repeat once more the statement that has been elicited in the cross-examination being wholly ex parte and there being no reason why it should not be accepted, the only conclusion that any prudent and reasonable man can draw from it is that there was no bar of section 69(2) in the way of the petitioners. Indeed, Mr. To repeat once more the statement that has been elicited in the cross-examination being wholly ex parte and there being no reason why it should not be accepted, the only conclusion that any prudent and reasonable man can draw from it is that there was no bar of section 69(2) in the way of the petitioners. Indeed, Mr. P. K. Bose, learned Counsel for the railway administration, when confronted with the exparte evidence, could not persuade me to hold otherwise. 4. For the reasons given above, this application must succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 29. 7. 1975 of the learned Small Cause Court Judge is set aside and the suit is decreed. In the circumstances of the case, however, parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. Application allowed.