9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit maintainability of an unregistered partnership firm under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. 2. Application to amend the plaint from a registered partnership firm to a proprietorship concern. Analysis: 1. The revision petition challenged the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff's application under Order 6, Rule 17 and dismissing the defendant's application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff claimed to be a registered partnership firm, but during the trial, it was revealed that the plaintiff was actually a proprietorship firm at the time of filing the suit. The defendant argued that the suit was not properly instituted as an unregistered partnership firm, citing Section 69 of the Partnership Act. However, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to reflect the correct status of being a proprietorship concern. The court considered the evidence and legal principles to determine the suit's maintainability. 2. The defendant contended that the suit should be dismissed under Section 69 of the Partnership Act due to the misdescription of the plaintiff as a registered partnership firm. Conversely, the plaintiff argued for amending the plaint to accurately reflect the plaintiff's status as a proprietorship firm. The court analyzed previous judgments and legal provisions to decide on the propriety of allowing the amendment. It was established that the suit was maintainable as a proprietorship firm and not an unregistered partnership firm. The court emphasized the importance of serving the ends of justice through amendments and upheld the trial court's decision to allow the amendment and dismiss the defendant's application under Order 7, Rule 11. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the amendment of the plaint from a registered partnership firm to a proprietorship concern. The court determined that the suit was maintainable as a proprietorship firm and not an unregistered partnership firm, emphasizing the importance of amendments to serve the ends of justice. The judgment highlighted the principles of allowing amendments to correct misdescriptions and ensure fair proceedings. The petition was dismissed based on the upheld order allowing the amendment, rendering the defendant's application under Order 7, Rule 11 infructuous.
|
