HAR PRASAD Vs. LALA SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal from an order, remanding the case to the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from using and taking sugarcane juice from the tenants. In the alternative it was prayed that account be taken, which was for 1949-60, from the defendants and a decree be passed for the amount in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that there was a partnership between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the purpose of purchasing sugarcane Juice for making gur from it. The case of the plaintiffs further was that the defendants alone had been collecting the juice and have not paid the profits. The defence, inter alia, was that since the partnership was not registered, the suit was barred by Section 69, Partnership Act.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit several dates had been fixed. The suit was filed on 28-1-50 and 23-3-50 was fixed for filing written statement. The written statement was filed on 21-4-50. Issues were framed on 17-7-50 and thereafter there were several hearings but the suit was not taken up and ultimately the suit was transferred to another Court. The first date on which actually some hearing took place was 10-5-51. It appears that on that day the defence presspd the issue of want of registration of partnership and consequent incompetency of the suit. A prayer was, therefore, made by the plaintiffs that they be granted time to file an application for amendment of the plaint. Time was granted. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 12-5-1951, the application was filed and in the application for amendment it was prayed that the relief for dissolution of the partnership may also be granted. It may be noted that 12-5-1951 was specifically fixed by the learned Munsif for consideration of that application alone. On that day the learned Munsif dismissed the application for amendment and also dismissed the suit on the ground that since the partnership was not registered, the suit was not maintainable under Section 69, Partnership Act.