- (1.) SANJAY Misra, J. This is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Revision is directed against an order dated 12. 9. 2008 passed in original Suit No. 1055 of 2002 Ravindra Kohli Vs Harish Chandra Kohli and others, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1 Kanpur Nagar whereby the amendment application filed by the Revisionist/plaintiff has been rejected.
(2.) THE Revisionist plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of House No. 111-A/89 Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and is the shareholder to the extent of 60% share of the firm M/s Kohli Constructions Company by virtue of a registered will deed dated 4. 9. 1990 executed by his grand mother Smt. Pushpawanti. By the amendment application (170-ka) he sought addition of two paragraphs in his plaint as paragraph No. 14-A and 14-B. By paragraph 14-A he pleaded that M/s Kohli Constructions Company was initially constituted in the year 1963 by Sri Natha Mal Kohli wherein Sri Natha Mal Kohli, Sri Desh Raj Kohli and Sri Harish Chandra Kohli were partners. On 19. 4. 1969 Sri Natha Mal Kohli died and according to his will his wife Smt Pushpawanti Kohli became a partner and the company which was registered with the Registrar with registration No. 90504 was formed. Sri Desh Raj died on 4. 11. 1986 and M/s Kohli Constructions Company was reconstituted wherein Sri Ravindra Kumar Kohli (plaintiff revisionist) was made a partner to the extent of 25% by the partnership deed dated 7. 11. 1986. The fresh partnership was registered with registration No. K-2426 and therefore the firm having registration No. 90504 came to an end and the entire assets and liabilities were taken over by the reconstituted firm having registration No. K-2426. The defendant respondents have obtained form No. 7 and 8 from the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur to show that M/s Kohli Constructions Company registration No. 90504 is still in existence. By paragraph 14-B it was stated that form No. 7 and 8 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur is void since it was taken by misrepresentation on the basis of forged papers behind the back of the partners of the firm. It was prayed that the said information in Form 7 and 8 should be amended by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur and by an order dated 21. 4. 2006 the High Court required such an issue to be framed and decided by the Trial Court.
(3.) THE order dated 21. 4. 2006 was passed in Special Appeal No. 385 of 2006 (Harish Chandra Kohli Vs Ravindra Kohli and others) wherein an order dated 7. 3. 2006 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 28 of 2005 (Ravindra Kohli Vs Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits and others) had been set aside. THE court found that the civil suit between the parties is pending consideration wherein the plaintiff had sought a declaration claiming rights of partnership in the old firm in which his grand mother was a partner. It found that the information which was submitted in form 7 and 8 were informations under Section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 and such information was given by the appellant (Harish Chandra Kohli ). THE Special Appeal court recorded that the Civil court is fully empowered to issue any direction for amending any entry registering a firm including the certificate issued by the Registrar in response to information submitted in form 7 and 8 and held that the issue as to whether the newly constituted firm was constituted after dissolution of the old firm or the new firm was a separate firm having no connection with the old firm are issues of fact which require evidence for adjudication. Consequently the Special Appeal court gave liberty to the parties to get their rights adjudicated before the Civil Court in light of the observations made in the judgement dated 21. 4. 2006. The defendant respondent filed objection (172-ga) to the amendment application and stated that he had filed his written statement and counter claim to the unamended plaint. According to him the judgement dated 21. 4. 2006 passed in the Special Appeal clearly recorded that the issue regarding the old firm and new firm can be decided by the Civil Court on the evidence of the parties and there was no direction for amending the plaint. He has stated that the Revisionist plaintiff was never a partner of the Company having registration No. 90504 and no information was given to the authority as required under Section 63 and 72 of the Indian Partnership Act regarding closure of the said firm having registration No. 90504. He has pleaded that an earlier application No. 139-ga filed by the plaintiff revisionist has already been rejected and that the plaintiff revisionist was not a partner of the firm having registration No. 90504 and such order has obtained finality.;