RAMKRISHNA GUPTA Vs. SHYAMSUNDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision, the applicant plaintiff seeks interference with the order made by the trial Court refusing his request for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 on the allegation that there was a partnership in between him and non petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. The name of the non -petitioner 4 was however, added because he was also actually interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the business of partnership and had made a forcible entry by breaking open the lock of the shop.

(3.) WHEN the defendants came with this plea, the plaintiff sought permission of the Court to incorporate such amendment in the plaint which, according to the plaintiff, was purely consequential and had become necessary in the context of the defence raised by the defendants. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to state that there was no such finally concluded agreement and it was only at the stage of draft agreement and was also not signed by all the parties. It was also pleaded in the alternative that even if it was held that there had been any such agreement, the plaintiff had not been paid Rs. 18,000/ - and as such the defendants cannot claim any benefit out of such an agreement. The plaintiff has also stated that due to inadvertence, he could not state the aforesaid circumstances of the talks and the existence of draft agreement for relinquishing his rights and interest in the partnership business on receipt of Rs. 18,000/ -. In the aforesaid context, it was stated that there was any such agreement the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No. 4 because he had not been paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 18,000/ -.