- (1.) THIS revision has arisen from the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 332 of 1999 permitting Sri Rakesh Kumar to be substituted as Partner of the Firm, M/s Rakesh Kumar and Company, i.e., the plaintiff after the death of erstwhile Partner Suraj Bhan, who had instituted the suit.
(2.) COURT below has observed that the Firm is registered one wherein Rakesh Kumar is the partner. From the record, it appears that this fact was specifically disputed by revisionist but without making investigation into the matter further, Court below has passed impugned order only on the basis of Form -38, copy whereof was filed before it observing that Rakesh Kumar is the partner of the Firm.
(3.) COPY of Form -38 has been placed before this Court by revisionist stating that it nowhere shows that Rakesh Kumar was one of the partners in the Firm. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1, i.e., Rakesh Kumar, he has appended copy of Form -1 giving names of various Partners and the name of Sri Rakesh Kumar, Partner, is mentioned at Sl.No. 3 at item -5. The revisionist challenged the aforesaid document stating that no such document was placed before the Court below and it has been added for the first time in the counter affidavit filed before this Court. It is in these circumstances, this Court summoned the original record for its perusal. Having perused the same, the Court found that the document wherein names of Partners are mentioned was not part of original record of Court below. This fact was pointed out to the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 but he insisted that it was filed before the Court below. Hence this Court was compelled to pass following order on 24.4.2015: "1. I have perused the original record received from the Court below along with the application filed by the opposite parties, which is marked as paper no.4 -C. There are two documents, which were placed on record of the Court below. The first document, which has four pages and is marked as paper no.25 -C/2, 25 -C/3 and 25 -C/4. The second document is single page document. There is no other paper along with paper no.26 -C/2. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 sworn by Sri Vijay Kumar, he has placed on record not only the document paper no. 26 -C/2 but there is a further document as Form No.1, which is consisting of two papers but there is no such paper in the original record whatsoever. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that it is also a part of paper no. 26 -C and filed before the Court below but the original record does not contain any such document. Thus, it is evident that the opposite party no.1 has filed a false affidavit before this Court. The underline suggestion is that some document was filed but removed from record of the Court below. 3. Let Sri Vijai Kumar appear in person before this Court on 1.5.2015 to specifically states whether the document, which is filed at page 21 of the counter affidavit was actually filed before the court below or not. 4. List on 1.5.2015 peremptorily.";