SAROJINI PRADHAN Vs. KHIRODE CHANDRA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opp. party as plaintiff has instituted the suit out of which this application arises for recovery of Rs. 64,000. 00 and odd against the defendant petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner entered into an agreement with him for working of her mines: that she executed a power of attorney in his favour and that she having terminated the agreement, he sustained loss and damage.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in her written statement in the Court below is that she appointed the OPP. party as her agent to work her mines by executing a power of attorney in his favour: that she also entered into an agreement with the opp. party for working of the mines; that the termination of the agreement was valid and that the claim for damages is not tenable. The petitioner in the Court below by her petition dated 7-2-72 sought to amend her written statement by incorporating the following statement. "that the plaintiffs suit is hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. 1932, inasmuch as, by the agreement of 24-3-1965, a partnership was constituted which however has not been registered as a firm under section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act. " she also filed another application in the Court below under Order 11, Rule 12, C. P. C. for discovery of certain documents. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 23-2-1972 rejected both the petitions of the petitioner, viz. , one under Order 6. Rule 17, C. P. C. for amendment of the written statement, and the other for discovery of certain documents under Order 11, Rule 12. C. P. C. , Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, she has come UP with this civil revision.

(3.) AT the time of hearing. Mr. S. C. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for opposite party raises a preliminary point that even though a common order dated 23-2-72 has been passed by the Court below, since by the said order the learned Subordinate judge has disposed of two separate applications of the petitioner one for amendment of her written statement and the other for giving discovery to certain documents, the petitioner should have filed two civil revisions instead of one. He contends that unless the petitioner elects to confine the present civil revision to any one of the two orders passed by the Court below, this revision is liable to be dismissed. There is sufficient force in this contention. As a matter of fact the petitioner by two separate applications moved the court below for the two separate and distinct reliefs, one being for allowing her to amend the written statement and the other being to direct the opp. party to give discovery of certain documents. Confronted with this position, Mr. R. Das, learned counsel for petitioner confines the present revision to the impugned order relating to the petition for amendment of the written statement This revision is, therefore, confined to amendment matter.