OM PARKASH Vs. GURU NANAK RICE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 7.10.1999 passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mill through its partners Sukhjinder Singh and Ajay Kumar had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 48,41,758/- against Om Parkash and his son Amrit Lal, defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively. The plaint is dated 3.11.1998. In the said suit it was alleged that plaintiff firm was a partnership firm and Sukhjinder Singh and Ajay Kumar are partners. It was further alleged that defendant No. 2 Amrit Lal who is son of defendant No. 1 Om Parkash is also one of the partners of the firm. It was alleged that the plaintiff firm was having a bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce and since the opening of the said account, defendant No. 1, Om Parkash as Manager of the plaintiff firm was operating the said account. It was alleged that taking advantage of the authority to operate the bank account, defendant No. 1 had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 29,29,000/- on the basis of various cheques and after withdrawal of the said amount, defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendant No. 2 had mis-appropriated the same to their own use. It was accordingly prayed that a decree for Rs. 48,41,758/- (Rs. 29,29,000/- as principal and Rs. 19,12,758/- as interest) be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

(3.) THE case was at the stage of filing replication when the plaintiff firm filed an application dated 1.2.1999 under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint. It was alleged that certain facts were inadvertently omitted which were necessary to be incorporated. It was alleged that the plaintiff had failed to mention in the plaint that the plaintiff firm had been actually dissolved on 9.3.1997 on the death of Nachhatar Singh and that the present suit for recovery had been filed by a dissolved partnership firm. It was further alleged suit against defendant No. 2 was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.1.1999 and the above said omission and the withdrawal had necessitated the amendment of the plaint. It was alleged that wherever the word partnership firm had been used the plaintiff may be allowed to use the expression dissolved partnership firm and wherever the word partners is mentioned, the plaintiff may be allowed to replace the same with the expression through its ex-partners. It was further alleged that in the plaint wherever liability of the defendants was claimed as joint and severally, it should be replaced only with the word defendant by deleting jointly and severally. It was further alleged that the plaintiff firm be also allowed to allege that the firm was constituted vide partnership deed dated 1.10.1992 and it stood dissolved on 9.3.1997 on the death of Nachhatar Singh, one of the partners. It was further alleged that in para 7 of the plaint, the allegation that defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendant No. 2 had mis- appropriated the amount be allowed to be amended by alleging that the defendant mis-appropriated the amount.