IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
M/s Super Ispat Udyog Partnership Firm - Appellant
Versus
M/s National Steel And Agro Industries Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 7535 of 2017
Decided On : 17-09-2018
Amendment - Partnership Firm - Order 6, Rule 17 CPC - 12.01.2017, 03.10.2017 - The court discussed the amendment allowed in favor of the plaintiff, the change of nomenclature of the parties, and the legality of the amendment. The court highlighted the principles for allowing amendments and emphasized the importance of determining the real controversy in issue. The court found that the proposed amendment was time-barred and set aside the orders dated 12.01.2017 and 03.10.2017.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought to recover an amount from a private limited company based on business transactions. The defendants denied the allegations of the plaintiffs in their written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendment to change the parties and introduce a cause of action in respect of the partnership firm was time-barred and not legally sustainable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the amendment of the plaint, change of parties, and the legality of the proposed amendment in relation to the time-barred cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles for allowing amendments, the necessity for determining the real controversy in issue, and the potential prejudice likely to be caused to either party. It found that the proposed amendment was time-barred and based on falsehood.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders dated 12.01.2017 and 03.10.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioners have assailed the orders dated 12.01.2017 and 03.10.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana vide which application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was allowed and the parties to the litigation as well as pleadings in issue were changed and the application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC was dismissed.
2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 02.11.2017, following order was passed by this Court:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there were two distinct firms. One was partnership concern and the other was a private limited company. The amendment to introduce cause of action in respect of private limited company to be a partnership firm with defendants No.2 to 4 as partners instead of Directors would be totally time barred as cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in respect of partnership firm in the year 2008. The order dated 03.10.2017 is in continuation of order dated 12.01.2017 vide which amendment was allowed in favour of the plaintiff. After the amendment, original defendants kept on appearing through the advocate in new capacity.
Notice of motion for 02.03.2018.
In the meanwhile, trial Court shall adjourn the proceedings beyond the date fixed by this Court."
3. Brief facts of the case can be noticed for appreciating the controversy.
4. There were two firms with distinct entities. One was a partnership firm and other was a private limited company. The plaintiffs/respondents sent a legal notice to the private limited company on 07.02.2011. On the basis of said legal notice, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery on 22.06.2011. Para No.3 of the plaint is necessary to be quoted hereinbelow:-
"3. The defendants company through its Directors approached the plaintiffs and purchased the goods on credit basis from the plaintiffs and has been making the part payment towards the same. The defendants company is also a Private Limited Company and is duly incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, Chandigarh. The E-mail copy of the same is attached herewith. The defendants No.2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of the Company and are responsible for the day to day affairs of the company and are liable for the same."
5. Perusal of the aforesaid would show that the plaintiffs sought to recover the amount from the private limited company on the basis of business transactions.
6. Defendants/petitioners appeared and filed written statement on 24.08.2015. Para No.5 of the written statement is necessary to be quote hereinbelow:-
"5. That the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with a malafide motive to harass the defendants. There have been no dealings between plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 since 1.4.2006. No material was supplied by plaintiff No.1 company to defendant No.1 company after 23.11.2005. The last supplies of Colour Coated Sheets were made by the plaintiff No.1 company to defendant No.1 company on 23.11.2005 vide Bill No.421 worth Rs. 1,33,322/-and Bill No.420 worth Rs. 2541/-. The amounts of these bills were paid by defendant No.1 company vide Cheque No.625749 dated 10.12.2005 for Rs. 1,28,322/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana and Rs. 5000/- were adjusted against the plaintiff No.1 company on account of the amount of Freight. The balance sum of Rs. 2541/- was paid on 31.3.2006 in cash as the amount was squared up and the accounts were settled. No supply was made by plaintiff No.1 company to defendant No.1 company after 23.11.2005. No amount is due towards plaintiff No.1.
7. Perusal of the aforesaid para would show that the defendants have denied the case of the plaintiffs being false and frivolous. They have pleaded that there was no dealings between the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 since 01.04.2006. No material was supplied by plaintiff No.1 to defendant No.1/Company after 23.11.2005. The last supply was stated to be made to the Company on 23.11.2005 with the details of bills as shown in t
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.