NAVEEN KASHYAP AND OTHER Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 along with his father fifed a suit for injunction against the respondent against dispossession from the business premises bearing No. 357, Site-I, Vikaspuri, New Delhi. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant was a friend of petitioner No. 1 herein and was kept as a helper in the business premises mentioned aforesaid. Certain allegations were made in the plaint against the defendant and in nutshell, the disputes between the parties and an apprehension of dispossession gave rise to the suit. The defendant appeared in pursuance to the summons issued in the suit and the written statement was filed on the very first date. Interim orders of injunction have been granted in favour of the petitioners which have continued since then.

(3.) In the written Statement, the respondent took plea that he was a partner in the business. The partnership was Stated to be oral The respondent, however filed an application under Order 5 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 '(hereinafter referred to as "the said Order") dated 15.12.1999 seeking to amend para 3 of the preliminary objection of the written statement. The respondent sought to withdraw the allegation of an oral partnership and to substitute the same with the allegations of an agreement of understanding arrived at on 15.5.1992 with the father of petitioner No. 1 and the same had been reduced into a partnership deed dated 4.8.1992. Photocopies of the said two documents were sought to be brought oft record and it is stated that the originals are in the custody of the petitioners it may be noticed that the father of petitioners No. 1 passed away during the pendency of the suit and other legal heirs were brought on record as petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioners contested the application and alleged that there was on such original documents in their custody and that the alleged copies of these two documents were forged and fabricated: