G KONDAIARAYUDU Vs. MARVEL ORGANICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chirala on LA. 1389/93 in O.S. 18/93 dated 2-8-1996 is challenged. The application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are defendants. The application was resisted. After hearing both the sides, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the proposed amendments could not be accepted and the application was filed with a view to drag on the proceedings.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that in the nature of the proposed amendments, the clerical errors and factual misstatements were sought to be rectified. That was to be done in view of the defendants filing the written statement after a long time. According to him even the partnership deed and the other documents clearly showed the realities which have to be explained by means of the amendment. The learned advocate for the respondents has pointed out that no such documents have been referred to in the application for amendment and the so called amendments were not regarding the clerical errors.

(3.) The suit is for dissolution of partnership firm between the petitioner and the respondents and for accounts. These are the proposed amendments: