Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- The suave submissions and sure assertions made by Miss Seita Vaidyalingam, counsel for the appellant, are worthy of a better cause than a shaky challenge in this court to a revisional order by the High Court refusing to demolish a discretionary exercise by the trial court which allowed the amendment of a plaint in a suit for partition by inclusion of the relief of dissolution of partnership together with rendition of accounts and for the plaintiffs share therein. The parties are relations but the fight is bitter, perhaps because the subject matter is financially succulent, being a cinema theatre and a going cinema business. To start with, the plaintiff sought relief by way of partition of his share in the super-structure of the theatre. The claim was contested by the appellant, issues were struck, two years passed, and then the respondent (plaintiff) woke up to the need for an amendment of the plaint in the shape of additional reliefs and supportive averments. The new reliefs proceeded on the footing that there was a partnership of the treatre business in which the plaintiff had a share and the demand now made was to render an account of the cinema busine