S MURUVAPPAN PONDICHERRY Vs. S SIVAPALANI PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by the Principal Subordiante Judge, Pondicherry in I.A.No.434 of 2002 in O.S.No.189 of 2001, allowing the petition underO.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., and receiving additional reply statement filed by the first defendant. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is entangled in the litigation relating to the family partnership business against his father - second defendant and brother-first defendant. Case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the first defendant were partners in having the business in Textiles under the name and style "Murugans" at Pondicherry in door No. 265. A showroom consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor was built over the property bearing door No.265. According to the plaintiff, in 1996, difference of opinion arose between the Brother-in-law of the first defendant. The plaintiff has alleged that they have removed the costlier goods/dress materials as well as cash. Due to the misunderstanding between the brothers, there was a suggestion by the father/second defendant, directing the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000 (Rupees two crores) to the plaintiff, so that he can retire from the partnership. After six months, the first defendant has pleaded his enability to pay the amount. Hence, the second defendant suggested to the plaintiff to pay Rs.2.00,000 (Rupees two crores) to the first defendant and take the business for himself. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has totally paid a sum of Rs.95,00,000 (Rupees ninety five lakhs only); but stopped payment of further amount. The plaintiff has alleged that on account of the amount payable, the first defendant has removed valuable silk sarees, dress materials and other accessories from the shop. The first defendant had presented five cheques given by the plaintiff for collection. Since the cheques were dishonoured, the first defendant has filed criminal cases against the plaintiff under Sec 138, N.I. Act on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pondicherry. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit: (a) For dissolution of the partnership business formed between the plaintiff and the first defendant by the deed of partnership dated 6.3.1995. (b) To appoint a Chartered Accountant/Commissioner to take the accounts of the firm. (c) Permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men, agents and servants of any person from interfering with the partnership business carried under the firm name "Murugans" and other reliefs.

(3.) LEARNED Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry has allowed the application finding that there is no impediment for allowing the first defendant for filing written statement. Further, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff since the plaintiff would have the opportunity to meet out the points raised both in the written statement and in the additional written statement. The plaintiff cannot have any valid objection for receiving the additional written statement and on those findings allowed the application, ordering to receive the additional written statement.