HAVELLS INDIA LTD. Vs. EVERGREEN PROPERTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a defendant in a suit filed by the respondents seeking declaration, possession, mandatory and permanent injunction in regard to suit property, which is purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner -M/s Havell's India Ltd. (for short "petitioner -company") filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner - company which has been declined by the trial court. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner -company has filed the present revision.

(2.) THE allegations in the plaint are that respondent No. 1 M/s Evergreen Properties is a partnership concern which had given bid for purchase of the property. Respondents No. 2 to 4 and 8 originally were the partners of this firm. Later on respondent No. 6 submitted his resignation from the partnership concern w.e.f. 31.12.1991. Plea is that he accordingly could not have acted on behalf of respondent No. 1 firm. It is then urged that respondents No. 5 and 6 in collusion with each other entered into a tripartite agreement with the petitioner - company and have sold suit property in its favour. Hence, the present suit is filed by respondent No. 1 company. Initially the petitioner -company was not impleaded as defendant and later on was so impleaded on account of the amendment sought by respondent No. 1 company. A separate written statement was filed by the petitioner -company taking a stand that it had purchased the property in dispute for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1.26 crore under a tripartite agreement. The possession of the property was claimed by the petitioner -company, which was handed over to it where it has already commenced business after installing bulk of the machinery by investing huge amount. While responding to the averment contained in the plaint that respondent No. 1 firm was a partnership concern with respondents No. 2 to 4 and that respondent No. 6 had retired from the partnership firm etc., it is stated that the same is denied for want of knowledge further averring that respondent No. 1 be put to strict proof in this regard.

(3.) THE first objection that the petitioner -company seeks to incorporate through amendment is that the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the statutory provision provided under Section 69(2) of the India Partnership Act, 1932. It is found by the trial Court that this plea is contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner -company in para 3 of the written statement. In the previous written statement, the petitioner -company had averred that this para of the plaint is denied for want of knowledge and respondent -plaintiff be put to strict proof to prove the same. Another amendment which the petitioner - company wishes to incorporate is that the suit property was purchased by it as bonafide purchase for a value consideration. This, according to the petitioner -company, would go to the root of the matter. It is highlighted that respondents No. 1 to 4, who are plaintiffs, have no where in the entire plaint pleaded that the petitioner - company had ever colluded with other defendants while entering into the tripartite agreement.