An individual cannot amend her plaint to represent a partnership firm if the firm is unregistered, as it violates Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Rao, learned senior counsel for opposite party no.1.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 2^nd July, 2025 of learned 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cuttack passed in M.S. No.175 of 2008, wherein the prayer for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

3. Present petitioner is defendant no.1. The plaintiff who is opposite party no.1 filed the suit praying for a decree realizing money amounting to Rs.11,78,000/- from the defendant along with interest. The plaintiff has filed the suit in her individual capacity describing her as present opposite party no.1. Paragraph No. 2 of the plaint reads as follows:-

(2) That the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant on 1^st of April, 2000 being appointed as the cleaning and forwarding agent to act throughout the state of Orissa in order to look after and control the business of the company on commission basis. It is humbly submitted that the plaintiff carries on its business through its firm M/s.Rasi Trade Syndicate having its office at Cuttack.”

4. Now when the suit is at the stage where the plaintiff has filed her evidence affidavit but yet to be cross-examined, she filed a petition dated 16^th April, 2025 praying to amend her description as Managing Partner of M/s.Rasi Trade Syndicate along with certain more facts to be inserted at the end of paragraph 2 of the plaint. The schedule of proposed amendment is as follows:-

Schedule of proposed amendment

(i) In the cause title of the plaint the following be inserted before the name Smt. K. Renuka. "Rasi Trade Syndicate through its Managing Partner".

(ii) After last line of paragraph 2 of the plaint following be inserted.' "To be more clear initially plaintiff carried on business in partnership with Smt. K.Babita in the name and style as M/s. Rasi Trade Syndicate and defendant no.l appointed said firm to act as its C & F Agent for the State of Odisha vide agreement dated 01.04.2000. Subsequently said partnership underwent a change in its constitution and plaintiff in partnership with her husband namely K.Uma Maheswar Rao on 10^th of November 2004 carried on business in same name. Said fact was intimated to the defendant no.l and it continued business with reconstituted partnership firm.”

5. The learned trial court, with the observation that present amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties, has allowed the prayer for amendment of the plaintiff by saying that the same shall not prejudice the defendant since the trial is yet to commence.

6. Defendant no.1 challenges the prayer for amendment of the plaint on two grounds. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for defendant no.1 (present petitioner) submits that in view of the bar under Section 69 (2) of the Indian PARTNERSHIP ACT , 1932, read with Order 30 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , the plaintiff cannot now seek to change her capacity from an individual to a partnership firm. Secondly, it is further submitted by Mr. Patnaik that though the suit is of the year 2008 but the amendment is sought for in April, 2025 without explaining exercise of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff.

7. Conversely, Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff (present opposite party no.1) submits that it is a simple case where the plaintiff has been mis-described earlier and now by way of amendment the proper representation on behalf of the plaintiff has been corrected. He submits that a change of description is different than the change of status and the present case being an attempt to correct the mis-description of the plaintiff, the bar under Section 69 of th