IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Pratap Singh, J.
Sri Ayyappan Bleaching Factory by its Proprietor K. Pushpanathan
Vs.
Family Manager, M. Palaniappan
Decided On: 26.07.1993
PARTNERSHIP - SUIT BY REGISTERED FIRM - MAINTAINABILITY - WRONG PERSON - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 29, RULE 1 - INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 - SECTION 5 - A suit filed by a registered partnership firm in the name of its family manager is not maintainable. Amendment of the plaint to rectify the misnomer cannot be allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit against the defendant for money due on accounts. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed in the name of the wrong person, namely, the family manager of the firm, instead of the firm itself.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed in the name of the wrong person. The amendment of the plaint to rectify the misnomer could not be allowed as it would change the cause of action of the suit.
Issues: Whether a suit filed by a registered partnership firm in the name of its family manager is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A registered partnership firm can sue in the name of its partners for claims due to it. However, in the instant case, the suit was filed in the name of the family manager of the firm, who was not a partner. This was a misnomer and the amendment of the plaint to rectify the misnomer could not be allowed as it would change the cause of action of the suit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the findings of the courts below. The suit was dismissed as it was not maintainable.
Pratap Singh, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A.S. No. 140 of 1985 on the file of District Judge, Periyar District at Erode, confirming the judgment in O.S. No. 732 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode.
2. The short facts are: The respondent had filed suit against the revision petitioner for money due on accounts. That was resisted by the revision petitioner on many grounds. He contended that the suit was not maintainable, and that the plaintiff was not a proprietary concern. After trial the learned District Munsif had rejected the contentions put forth by the defendant and had decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant had filed appeal in A.S. No. 140 of 1985. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge had dismissed the appeal and had confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this revision.
3. Mrs. S. Subbulakshmi, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit has been filed in the name of wrong person and on that score it is liable to be dismissed. She would submit that the suit was filed as if the plaintiff is a proprietary concern. But the evidence let in during trial had disclosed that the plaintiff is a Registered Partnership Firm. But yet the trial court had decreed the suit. She would further submit that in the appeal amendment of plaint was sought for in I.A. No. 310 of 1986 and despite objection, it was allowed and even after amendment, the suit still remains not maintainable inasmuch as, after the amendment, the plaintiff is the family manager whereas Ex.A-22 would show that it is a registered partnership firm and hence this suit continues to be one liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable. Per contra, Mr. S. Jagadeesan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the dealings were admitted and no prejudice is caused to the defendant by the amendment of the name of the plaintiff.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsel. The plaintiff, as per the original plaint, before amendment, was Sami Colour Company by Proprietor M. Palaniappan. In the written statement in paragraph 4, it is averred as follows: "the defendant does not admit that the plaintiff is a proprietary concern and the plaintiff is bound to prove the same." In paragraph 2 of the written statement, it is averred as follows: "This suit as framed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed in limine". During trial, the name of the plaintiff is not amended. During the time when appeal was pending, a petition was filed in I.A. No. 310 of 1986 praying for amendment of the name of the plaintiff in the short cause title and in the long cause title. The amendment sought for was to delete the description of the plaintiff and substitute the following, which translated into English reads as follows: "Family Manager M. Palaniappan, Sami Colour Company". In the long cause title, the amendment sought for, which translated into English reads as follows: "Family Manager M. Palaniappan, aged 50, father's name Muthusami Mudaliar, Sami Colour Company, Easwaran Koil Street, Erode."
5. In the affidavit filed by M. Palaniappan in support of the application in I.A. No. 310 of 1986 he has stated as follows: "The respondent has filed the above appeal and has raised a technical plea that the description of the plaintiff is wrong and that the frame of the suit is defective. So, I have come forward with this petition praying for an amendment of the plaint to avoid the technical objection." Then, in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, he has stated as follows: "The business Sami Colour Company by name Sami Colour Company is a business of the family consisting of myself and my two sons and so, it is a joint family concern. So, the plaintiff ought to have been described as family Manager Palaniappan, Sami Colour Company. Since the busine
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.