Charles Dickson Field, J.

1. Two points are raised in this second appeal. First, it issaid that the Judge in the Court below has received additional evidence withoutrecording his reasons for so doing, as required by Section 568 of the Code ofCivil Procedure; and that, therefore, this evidence was improperly received,and ought to be treated as if it were not on the record. We think that theprovision of Section 568 as to an Appellate Court recording its reasons foradmitting additional evidence is mandatory or directory merely, and not imperative;and we think that the fact that the Judge in the Court below did not complywith this provision (with which most certainly he ought to have complied), doesnot, however, render the evidence irrelevant.

2. The second point pressed upon us is that, inasmuch as theJudge in the Court below received additional evidence, this appeal ought to betreated as a first appeal, and the learned vakil ought to be at liberty to gointo the facts; and in support of this argument a decision of the Madras HighCourt see Hinde v. Brayan I.L.R. 7 Mad. 52 is relied upon. As at presentadvised we are not prepared to concur in this contention.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

.

Gopal Singh vs.Jhakri Rai and Ors. (07.08.1885 - CALHC)