The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity and permissibility of impleading third party applicants in a partnership dispute, emphasizing the importance of the plaintiff's no objection for impleadment and the need for the presence of third party applicants for complete and final adjudication of the dispute.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

3. Petitioner is raising exception of the order passed below exh. 205 in Special Civil Suit No.1/2004 thereby rejecting the application presented by the petitioner seeking his impleadment in the pending suit presented by respondent No.1 herein against the State Government.

4. Respondent No.1 has presented a suit being Special Civil Suit No.1/2004 claiming recovery of money towards damages on account of breach of contract. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter. Suffice it to note that the plaint discloses that the suit is presented by respondent No.1 on behalf of the partnership firm. The third party applicants claim that they are the partners of the firm. The firm is not yet dissolved and is in existence. The statement appearing in the plaint that the firm is dissolved is incorrect and the claim is raised by respondent no.1 on the basis of certain forged and fabricated documents. It is contended that respondent No.1 / original plaintiff is trying to get financial benefits by misrepresenting the court as well as the partners of the firm. It is therefore contention of the third party applicants that their presence in the pending suit filed by respondent No.1 herein is essential for proper adjudication of the dispute. Although the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the partnership firm is registered in accordance with the provisions of law and the suit is presented on behalf of the partnership firm, contention is raised by original plaintiff while replying the contents of the application presented by the third party applicants that the firm is already dissolved in the year 1992. Document of dissolution of the firm is placed on record. Said document was presented with the registering authority and the entry in respect of dissolution of the firm has been recorded by the Registrar of Firms on 30-12-2004. The third party applicants have raised serious doubt for the authenticity of the document on which respondent No.1 / original plaintiff places reliance for contending that the partnership firm has been dissolved.

It is also contended by the third party applicants that separate writ petition is presented seeking directions against the Registrar of Firms to the effect that the partnership firm still continues and further direction is sought to take action against the respondent No.1. In these circumstances, it is contended that the interest of the firm would not be in safe hands and the plaintiff is not likely to prosecute the litigation diligently. To controvert the contentions raised by the third party applicants, it is contended by respondent No.1 / original plaintiff that as per the terms of the document of dissolution, it is the responsibility of respondent No.1 to initiate litigation in respect of recovery of amount and prosecute the same. It is further contended that the deed of dissolution of partnership was presented with the registering authority long back and order has been passed by the registering authority in 2004 itself. Instant suit is presented in 2004 whereas issues in the matter are framed long back. Plaintiff has led evidence to support the contentions raised in the plaint. Thus, it is contended that recording of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is complete and the case is posted for recording of evidence of the defendants. Application is presented by the third party applicants at the fag end of the proceeding. It is further contended that the third party applicants are trying to expand the scope of litigation. Respondent, in the alternate, contends that it is open for the third party applicants to raise appropriate dispute before the appropriate forum and even, the decree passed in the instant proceeding can be subjected to challenge in the collateral proceeding. It is further contended that the presence of third party applicants is neither neces