CHANDIMANDIR STONE CRUSHER Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this regular second appeal the challenge is to the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed, firstly on the ground that the same was not competent in view of the provisions under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The other ground for dismissal was that the plaintiff had concealed material facts from the Court and, therefore, was not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction. The plaintiff-appellant had failed to disclose the lease-deed as his period had already expired and he was unauthorised occupant of the property in dispute.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court in Popular Automobiles v. Eddy Current Controls India Ltd., 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 741. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Andavar Finance Corporation v. Murthy and another, AIR 2000 Karnataka 236. In all the judgments, it has been held that if the question of maintainability is not taken in the written statement, the Court is not competent to go into this matter and to decide the matter as to whether the suit was competent or not.