K RAJESWARAMMA Vs. CH SHANKARALAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the order passed in I.A. No.385/94 in OS. No.26/91 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasthi.

(2.) The petition was filed by the plaintiff, to amend the plaint, under Order 6 Rule 17 CP.C Originally, the plaint was filed, among other reliefs, for the relief of dissolution of partnership firm consisting of himself and other partners i.e., defendants 1 to 3, 5 and late M.C. Nagaraja, and also for rendition of accounts. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition the petitioner stated that as other partners were playing fraud on him and were causing loss to him, he filed the suit. He wanted to get out of the partnership firm and start his independent rice mill business without entering into any partnership. However, the attitude of the defendants was detrimental to his Interests. They were dragging on the proceedings. They were repeatedly going to High Court and obtaining stay of trial of the suit on slightest pretext in collusion with third party namely Cherukuru Munaiah, who is the lessee. He spent lot of amount on the litigation. He fell short of capital to invest in his rice mill business. In view of the changed circumstances he was forced to file the petition for amendment. In the amendment petition he wanted to remain as a partner in the firm. But he prayed alternative relief for a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs.2,20,000/- towards his share of profits and for rendition of accounts and for appointment of a Receiver, and other reliefs.

(3.) This petition is resisted by the defendants by filing counter. They stated it is not correct to say that the defendants delayed the proceedings. On the other hand the plaintiff filed number of petitions which compelled them to file proceedings before the High Court. The plaintiff himself is guilty of laches. The defendants filed a Memo into the Court on 8-11-1994 stating "without prejudice to the lights of D-2, D-3 and D-5 to question the quantum of income and the period of income, they submit to a decree and to a preliminary decree without costs with liberty to determine the liabilities of the parties in final decree proceedings." Consequently, all the I.As. filed by the petitioner and I.A. No361/94 filed by the respondents were dismissed. The Suit was posted on 15-11-1994 for hearing both the sides. On that day the petitioner filed a memo stating that he is not pressing the alternative relief of "for a declaration mat the partnership firm SriParam Jyothi Kumaraswamy Rice Mills, Srikalahasthi was dissolved on 10-11-90", and a check slip of Court fee was also closed in view of the same. The proposed amendment also changes the nature of the sui t Further, the petition is filed after three years of filing of the suit. The memo for preliminary decree was also admitted by the petitioner. In the notice given he only demanded for the relief of dissolution of the partnership, the relief as originally stood in the plaint. At this belated stage, the amendment cannot be allowed. Further, it is not known how Rs.2,20,000/- towards his share is calculated. The particulars are not given. A separate amount cannot be claimed by the partner unless the partnership is dissolved, and the account was rendered claiming specified amount pending the partnership suit. The amendment is also barred by limitation, etc.