N S RAJ Vs. S ROBERT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order made in i. A. No. 651/2002 in O. S. No. 96/1990 dated 21. 10. 2002 dismissing the Petition filed under Or. 6, R. 17 CPC filed for amending the Written Statement. The defendant is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O. S. No. 96/1990: - Case of the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the Defendant have jointly obtained a loan of Rs. 25 ,000 /- in the name of a partnership firm " Rajee and Renjith " from district Industrial Centre. The Plaintiff had invested Rs. 1 ,13,064 /-in the partnership. As soon as the production stage came, the Defendant dissolved the partnership by issuing notice of dissolution of partnership. In the dissolution notice, the Defendant has alleged that the Plaintiff has contributed only Rs. 28 ,000 / -. The Defendant has been doing business under the name and style'bethel Industries'. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for: - (i )winding up of the partnership Rajee and Renjith and the Plaintiff be paid Rs. 1,13,064 (One Lakh thirteen thousand and sixty four only) with 12% interest from the date of dissolution till recovery of entire amount from the partnership assets; (ii) that the accounts of the firm be taken; (iii) that a receiver be appointed to receive the accounts; and; for other reliefs.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the dismissal of the Petition, the defendant has preferred this revision. Submitting that the Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment of Written Statement, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/defendant has submitted that the Defendant is at liberty to take inconsistent plea. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision in 2000 (1) SCC 712. Submitting that the proposed amendment "with equal liability" would not in any way alter the defence plea set forth by the Defendant, the learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has misunderstood the amendment and erred in dismissing the application.