GHANSHYAM NEW ANDRAM PARWANI Vs. NANDLAL NAGARDAS VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing and disposal by consent of the parties.

(2.) PRESENT respondent - Nandlal initiated a suit claiming a declaration of dissolution of partnership, rendition accounts and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application, Exhibit-23, came to be filed at the instance of the present respondent-plaintiff claiming amendment to the Plaint by addition of parties as also claiming possession of the property in question. This application was rejected by the learned Judge of the trial Court, who dealt with the matter, by his order dated 24th November, 2000, and a revision against that order also came to be dismissed. The Judgment and Order passed in the Revision, since appeared to have not been challenged any further, can be said to have been concluded. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier amendment application, which stood rejected by order below Exhibit-23 on November 24, 2000, a specific amendment was sought for amongst other, claiming a decree for possession of the suit premises, and further challenging the alleged transaction dated 1-3-1995 between the trustees and the present petitioner/original defendant No. 2. That application was rejected by the above mentioned order which was confirmed in the Revision.

(3.) YET another application came to be filed for amendment on October 23, 2002, under Order VI, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby an amendment is again sought in prayer clause 5 by adding the words "or in the alternative, a decree for possession be passed. " Surprisingly, the learned Judge of the trial Court, who dealt with the matter, by his order dated November 16, 2002, allowed the same, observing that : the question whether premises were taken by either of the party as a tenant earlier to the formation of the partnership firm or was taken on lease by the firm is to be seen. " Fact, as is mentioned by the learned Judge is that the present petitioner/original defendant is held to be in exclusive possession and further that the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction was rejected. In spite of such specific observations by the learned Judge himself the learned Judge allowed the application for amendment. For what better purpose is a matter for one's consideration.