SHEO KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. CHATURBHUJ PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiff is directed against an order dated 14.8.1992 passed by the VII Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad allowing the defendant's application for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) Brief facts are that the plaintiff-revisionist filed a Suit against the defendant for dissolution of the partnership firm and for accounting. The parties are real brothers. According to the plaint case the plaintiff, defendant and one Vir Sen were partners of the first M/s Agarwal Sugar Industries. In the year 1983 Vir Sen separated from the partnership and the plaintiff and the defendant continued to be the partners of the said firm. The defendant, Who had 60 per cent share in the said firm, however, did not submit any account and hence the suit was filed. The defendant filed written statement and denied the allegations contained in the plaint. It was pleaded by the defendant that the firm of which the plaintiff and defendant were partners was dissolved in the year 1984 and thereafter the plaintiff-revisionist had no concern with the firm M/s Agarwal Sugar Industries. The entire accounts were settled in the year 1984. Subsequently, it appears, the plaintiff filed a copy of Sales Tax 'C' Form dated 4.9.1986. Thereafter the defendant-opposite party filed an application for amendment of the written statement for incorporating the plea that after the dissolution of the firm, on 25.10.1984 the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as an employee on a salary of Rs. 750.00 per month as the plaintiff was jobless and the terms between the parties being cordial the defendant, with a view to accommodate his brother, employed him on a monthly salary. This amendment was objected to by the plaintiff who filed objection to the said amendment. The trial court, however, after hearing the parties allowed the defendant's application for amendment of the written statement by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the plaintiff has preferred the present revision before this Court.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. Prior to the admission of this revision notice was issued to the opposite party. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the revision is being finally decided at the admission stage itself.