BRIJLAL Vs. HOTEL NEELAM-LODGING AND BOARDING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint is rejected by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Aurangabad and that is why the plaintiffs have challenged that order in this Court in Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and it arises out of the following facts.

(2.) In order to properly decide this question, it is necessary to state a few facts. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners before this Court. Defendant No. 2 is respondent No. 2 in this Court and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in this Court. In this revision. I will refer these parties as plaintiff s and defendants. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of and defendant No. 4 is mother of defendant No. 2 On 10-4-1970. a registered partnership deed was executed and a partnership business under the name and style of "Hotel Neelam-Lodging and Boarding" (respondent No. 1) was started by the plaintiffs and by defendant Nos. 3 and 4. These were the only four partners in the partnership. Defendant No. 2 was appointed by all the partners as a General Power of Attorney on 30-5-1972. Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7. who are respondents 5, 6 and 7 in this Court, are the financiers of defendant No. 1 business and they have advanced various loans to defendant No. 1 and necessary documents in that respect have been executed by all the partners.

(3.) It appears that respondent No. 5, the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation filed an application in the District Court at Auruangabed for putting hypothecated property for sale. and consequently order of attachment, injunction etc. are passed in those proceedings started under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Similarly. defendant No. 6 has started another proceedings at Bombay on the Original Side f this Court against defendant No. 1 for reliefs similar to those claimed by defendant No. 5. There was no repayment of loan.