RAMVILAS GUPTA Vs. GOVIND PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . 1. Challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 5.1.2002 rejecting an application for amendment filed by the petitioners-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) SHRI Sanjeev Jain learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners had filed the suit in question for declaring a sale deed executed by respondents No. 1 and 2 on 7.1.1991 as null and void. During the pendency of the suit, defendants had filed certain applications for amendment and by amending the written statement they have pleaded that the property admittedly belongs to a firm and as firm is not registered suit is not maintainable. When the aforesaid application was allowed, petitioner made an application for amendment his plaint, interalia contending as analternate that the agreement executed is null and void and petitioners be declared to be owner of one-third share of the property. This application has been rejected on the ground that it changes nature of the suit and has been filed belatedly after 12 years, after the evidence of the plaintiff and their cross-examination is over. Shri Jain argued* that the petitioners only wanted to clarify his plea in the light of the amendment made by the defendants and this application has been rejected without any reasons. It is submitted by him that as the amendment was necessary for effective disposal of the dispute between the parties, learned Court should have allowed the same.

(3.) FROM the records it is seen that petitioners have come up with a case that they alongwith defendants No. 1 and 2 are partners of a firm namely M/s. Govind Metal Industries. It is futher indicated in the plaint that petitioner came to Gwalior on 20.10.1991, when it has come to his knowledge that defendant No. 1 and 2 who are also partners in the firm have entered into an agreement dated 7.1.1991 for selling property of the firm with the other defendants and therefore petitioners filed the suit for declaring the sale deed as null and void. Further averments made in the plaint are that the defendants No. 1 and 2 have sold property of the firm to defendants No. 3 and 4 and they are not permitting the petitioner to enter the factory premises.