A partner can dissolve a partnership by issuing a notice under section 43 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and can subsequently seek amendment of the plaint to seek dissolution of partnership and consequential relief.

JUDGMENT - Deshpande D.B. J.- Plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint is rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad and that is why the plaintiffs have challenged that order in this Court in Revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and it arises out of the following facts.

2. In order to properly decide this question, it is necessary to state a few facts. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners before this Court. Defendant No. 2 is respondent No. 2 in this Court and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this Court. In this revision, I will refer these parties as plaintiffs and defendants. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of and defendant No. 4 is mother of defendant No. 2. On 10–4–1970, a register-ed partnership deed was executed and a partnership business under the name and style of “Hotel Neelam Lodging and Boarding” (respondent No. 1) was started by the plaintiffs and by defendants Nos. 3 and 4. These were the only four partners in the partnership. Defendant No. 2 was appointed by all the partners as a General Power of Attorney on 30–5–1972. Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7, who are respondents 5, 6 and 7 in this Court, are the Financiers of defendant No. 1 business and they have advanced various loans to defendant No. 1 and necessary documents in that respect have been executed by all the partners.

3. It appears that respondent No. 5, the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation filed an application in the District Court at Aurangabad for putting hypothecated property for sale, and consequently orders of attachment, injunction etc. are passed in those proceedings started under section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Similarly defendant No. 6 has started another proceedings at Bombay on the Original Side of this Court against defendant No. 1 for reliefs similar to those claimed by defendant No. 5. There was no repayment of loan.

4. It is on account of this fact that on 12–2–1981, the present plaintiffs cancelled the General Power of attorney given to defendant No. 2 and they notified this fact duly publicly on 24–2–1981 for general information of the public. It appears that thereafter defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 112 of 1981 against the plaintiffs for injunction restraining them not to interfere in the day-to-day working of the business and it appears further that on 6–3–1981, a temporary injunction order was issued in that suit and was served on the present plaintiffs. It appears further that the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 later on converted this partnership into a private limited company and on 1–6–1981, transferred the entire assets and liabilities of the partnership in favour of newly formed private limited company, of which the defendant No. 2 became the Managing Director. It is not disputed that the share of the plaintiffs together was 50% and it is also not disputed that in the Article of Association and in the Memorandum of Association of the private limited company, plaintiffs do not appear any-where in the picture.

5. It is in this background that the plaintiffs first of all filed a Special Civil Suit No. 55 of 1981 on 20–7–1981 asking for several reliefs. In this plaint, they narrated all the facts relating to the partnership etc. and relating to the conversion of the business etc. and they claimed several reliefs. In this revision, we are mainly concerned with the reliefs in prayer clause A, which runs as follows: -

“That the suit of the plaintiff be kindly decreed against defendants 1 to 4; the following reliefs be kindly incorporated in the decree to be passed against them and in favour of plaintiffs :

A. That it be kindly declared that the firm of the defendant No. 1 as a registered partnership continues and still subsists with the present plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the partners of this partnership firm,

B........

C:

D ...

E -

F

G “.

6. In this suit, plaintiffs gave an application Ex. 5 for the appointment of Recei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document