SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) BY this order I would dispose of three applications being IA NO. 3144/2005, IA NO. 3145/2005 and ia NO. 4475/2005. The first two are the applications filed by defendant no. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rejection of the plaint and consequent dismissal of the suit, while IA NO. 4475/2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, specific performance and mesne profits. The suit is between the family members in relation to carrying on of business and running of a five- star hotel under the name and style of Hotel Imperial. Plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 are the sisters of defendant no. 1, while defendants no. 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 5 is a partnership concern comprising of the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 4. The defendant no. 1 is stated to be the owner of the leased premises being Hotel Imperial, situated at 124, Janpath, New Delhi. The property was owned by the predecessor of defendant no. 1 and the premises of Hotel imperial were given on lease to defendant no. 5. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 4 as partners of defendant no. 5 have been successfully running the said business for the last more than 31 years. Certain disputes arose in December 1998 with respect to continuance of the business and renewal of the lease, which had become due for renewal on 1st july, 1999 for a further period of five years and the option to renew the lease vests with the partnership firm or the partners in the similar fashion till 2014. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that in order to resolve the issues, they attempted to meet the managing partners, which attempts failed. The persistent dispute between the parties kept on increasing and it is stated that more than Rs. 50 crores was spent in the reconstruction and refabrication of the hotel and this was done with the object of continuing the partnership activity, which the defendants abruptly attempted to end resulting in filing of the present suit. While claiming the above reliefs, the plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as under and claimed the following reliefs:-

( 2 ) BESIDES contesting the suit on merits, and by raising preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the suit, the defendants have taken up the plea that the partnership business stood dissolved by efflux of time and had ceased to exist for all practical purposes and intents w. e. f the midnight of 30th June, 1999. The balance sheet of the erstwhile firm, clearly stating realisation and expenditure account, was prepared by the contracted Chartered Accountant of the firm in accordance with rules of law. It is stated that plaintiff no. 3 was offered Rs. 1,47,94,102/- vide cheque no. 400391 dated 11th August, 1999, defendant no. 4 was offered rs. 2,91,60,003/- vide cheque no. 400392 dated 11th august, 1999, defendant no. 2 was offered Rs. 5,53,39,098/- vide cheque no. 400393 dated 11th August, 1999 and defendant no. 3 was offered Rs. 4,09,08,605/- vide cheque no. 400394 dated 11th August, 1999. It is stated that the plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 refused to accept the same without any good reason and cause and that they have no subsisting interest in the partnership concern. It is also stated that the plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 had no right in the management and the lease deed dated 16th august, 1968 came to an end and the premises of Hotel imperial was surrendered by its lessee to Sardar Rajdev singh vide the Registered Deed of Surrender dated 30th april, 1972. It is denied that any permanent interest was created in favour of the plaintiffs by the said defendant.

( 3 ) A detailed written statement was filed to quite a long plaint and equally voluminous

Click Here to Read the rest of this document