ORDER. — This Civil Revision Petition is against an order of the learned City Civil Judge, who allowed an amendment of the plaint which amendment was under the following circumstances, as mentioned by the Court below:

"....It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 24,711-30 due to him as charge for construction work carried on by him. It is also stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff’s firm was a partnership and that the partnership was dissolved on 22nd February, 1972. After the dissolution the plaintiff was carrying on the business as the sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm. At the time of the institution of the suit this fact was not brought to the notice of the counsel. The firm has been running by the plaintiff as the sole proprietor. Hence he prays that the plaint should be suitably amended and that the long cause title should be permitted to be suitably amended.“

2. Messrs. Aruna and Associates was originally a partnership firm. It is said to have been dissolved on 22nd February, 1972. In spite of such a dissolution having taken place and in spite of the fact that it is alleged that the petitioner who sought for an amendment in the lower Court professed that he became the sole proprietor of Messrs. Aruna and Associates, the suit was instituted on 27th April, 1974 in the name of the firm Messrs. Aruna and Associates but describing the same as a partnership firm carrying on business as Engineers and Contractors at Madras.

3. The suit was resisted inter alia on the ground that the plaint partnership firm was an unregistered one and, therefore, no suit could be filed by an unregistered firm in its own name without the same being registered in a manner known to law under the Partnership Act. A specific issue was also raised on 28th August, 1974 whether the suit was maintainable at all by an unregistered firm. Realising the impasse and difficulty in the matter, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application for an amendment in October, 1976. The amendment was sought for in the following terms:

”1. Cause title .. P. Balasubramanian, proprietor M/s. Aruna & Associates Plaintiff.

2. Para one of the plaint .. The plaintiff, P. Balasubramanian is the son of R. Panchapakesan, Hindu, aged about 42 years, carrying on business as proprietor, Messrs. Aruna and Associates and is residing at No. 163-V, Royapettah High Road, Madras-4.

3. Verification .. I, P. Balasubramanian, son of R. Panchapakesan, Hindu, aged about 42 years, proprietor of M/s. Aruna and Associates do hereby declare that the facts stated above in paras 1 to 8 are true and correct and sign this verification at Madras on this day of 1976.

4. It is seen, therefore, that by seeking for an amendment of the plaint, Mr. P. Balasubramanian wanted to get himself on record as the proprietor of M|s. Aruna and Associates. This action was resisted by the petitioner-defendant on the ground that no such amendment can be sought for or allowed under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code as it will totally change the cause of action and also on the ground that the suit as originally instituted was an incompetent one and such a suit which cannot be maintained cannot be sustained further by an amendment as asked for. The lower Court, however, accepted the plaintiff’s contention that the amendment was possible and it allowed the application on costs. It is as against this, that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. Mr. Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, takes up the preliminary objection that the application for amendment ought not to have been entertained at all since it is not in dispute that the original suit which was brought into the portals of the Court was by a partnership which was not registered under the Partnership Act and that therefore, under section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, the suit was not maintainable as the mandate therein is so clear and emphatic. The additional groun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document