SUNIL GOEL Vs. RATIONAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend the plaint. By way of amendment, plaintiff seeks to implead defendant Nos. 4 to 6 as parties and add Paras 20A to 20K after Para 20 of the original plaint reciting the necessary facts and consequently amending Para 25 of the plaint relating to the cause of action, Para 26 relating to the Court fees and prayer clause.

(2.) BY the present suit the plaintiff has prayed for dissolution of partnership firm, rendition of accounts and recovery of the amount due and payable after rendition of accounts from the defendants. The plaintiff and defendant No.2&3 are brothers and partners in defendant No.1 firm. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the written statement of defendant No.2&3, it is alleged that in the year 2001 -02 there was an alleged oral family settlement by mutual consent in front of their father Shri O.P. Goel wherein all three sons partitioned their business interest in Mumbai and Delhi. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 dissolved their partnership business in Mumbai in the name and style of M/s. Sanil Industries and the plaintiff and defendants No2&3 dissolved their partnership business of defendant No.1 in Delhi during the life time of their father. Thereafter the defendant No.2&3 re -wrote a partnership deed of business under the name and style of M/s. Rational Enterprises removing the plaintiff there -from on 1st April, 2004. Further even this partnership firm was taken over with all the assets and liabilities on 31st July, 2009 by a Private Limited Company i.e. M/s. Rational Sales Private Limited vide a Take Over Agreement dated 1st August, 2009 wherein defendants No.2&3 are the Directors of the said Company. Thus, the partnership firm ceased to exist. It is further the case of defendant No.2&3 that flat No. 111, Mercantile House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi of the defendant No.1 partnership firm has been sold by M/s. Rational Sales Private Limited to Shri Vikram Kataria and Sandeep Kataria for a total sale consideration of Rs. 87 lakhs. It is in view of this stand of defendants No.2&3 in the written statement which necessitated the plaintiff to file the present application seeking to implead the proposed defendants No.4 to 6 in addition to the existing defendant Nos.1 to 3 and incorporate consequential amendments in the paragraphs as mentioned above.

(3.) A perusal of the plaint and the proposed amendments show that the plaintiff has neither sought to withdraw an admission nor set up a new case. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant No.1 was a partnership firm of the plaintiff and defendants No.2&3 and since the defendants No.2&3 who were primarily looking after defendant No.1 were hostile to the plaintiff, he sent a letter dated 10th July, 2009 requesting defendants No.2&3 to allow him to inspect the record and render proper accounts maintained by them. When the plaintiff realized that the defendants were committing some fraud, vide notice dated 8th November, 2009 he clearly informed the defendants that since the partnership entered into between them is 'partnership at Will', he did not want the partnership business of defendant No.1 to continue and wanted dissolution of the firm with immediate effect i.e. from the date of receipt of the said notice. Even in the amendments the case of the plaintiff continues to be that the defendant No.1 firm was never dissolved till he gave the notice as above and the transactions of the defendant No.2&3 were without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. Further no right, title or interest could be transferred by defendants No. 2 and 3.