DURGA SUBRAHMANYAMESWARAAND CO GUDIVADA Vs. SIRIPURAPU SANKARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed as against the decree and judgment made in O.S. No.3 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,825/-. The suit was resisted. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and D.Ws.l to 3 had been recorded and Exs.Al to A16 were marked. The learned Judge after recording certain reasons, ultimately dismissed the suit observing that the suit is dismissed on a technical ground and hence, the parties to bear their costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) Sri M. Y.K. Raidu, learned Counsel representing Sri P. Raja Rao, the learned Counsel for appellant-plaintiff, had brought to the notice of this Court that C.M.P. No.824 of 1991 was filed praying for reception of the certified copy of the Certificate of Registration under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act") issued by the Registrar of Firms, A.P., Hyderabad, as additional evidence. The Counsel would maintain that inasmuch as on a technical ground, the suit was dismissed it would be just and proper to mark the same as Ex.Al7 and allow the appeal instead of sending the matter back again. The learned Counsel also would point out that originally the suit was instituted in individual name and in the light of the objection taken, the same was amended as representing the Partnership Firm and inasmuch as the defect was rectified by virtue of an amendment, the amendment would relate back to the date of the institution of the suit and hence, the view expressed by the learned Judge that if the date of amendment be considered, the suit would be barred by limitation, also is not the correct view.