GEETA BHUTANI Vs. SAT NARAIN GUPTA AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 2nd November, 2007 whereby application of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed with cost. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of price of goods supplied to the defendants. Defendant No.1 is the partnership firm and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the partners. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed a joint written statement while defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement. The plea taken by the defendants was that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were defective and the agreed discounts were not provided and computation done by the plaintiff was incorrect, therefore, plaintiff was not liable to recover the price of the goods. Defendant No.2 by making application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC sought to amend the written statement so as to state that liability of defendant No.1, that is, partnership firm stood transferred to M/s. Geeta Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of defendant No.3 and suit, therefore, as against defendant No.2 was liable to be dismissed. This application for amendment was made by the defendant not only after framing of issues but after evidence of the plaintiff had been partly recorded. The trial court noted the conduct of defendant No.2 in following words :-

(2.) The trial court also found that the alleged transfer of liability to M/s. Geeta Enterprises was within the knowledge of defendant No.2 even on the date of filing written statement and this was not a subsequent event and there was no explanation in the application as to why this fact was not disclosed in the written statement initially. The trial court found that the amendment was being sought after the commencement of trial with no justification but just to delay the proceedings.

(3.) I am in prefect agreement with the trial court. The conduct of the petitioner from the very beginning had been to delay the proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the alleged transfer of liability from partnership to proprietorship. It is also not the case of the petitioner that at the time when the transaction had taken place, the petitioner was not a partner of the partnership firm. The trial court rightly did not allow the amendment application.