RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. - (1.) IN this petition the order dated 15th July, 2013 (P -7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula in Civil Suit No.35 of 2009; M/s Maa Bhagwati Associates v. Ravi Bansal is challenged. The application filed by the defendant, the petitioner before this Court, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') in the suit praying for amending the written statement has been declined. The application was filed on 22nd March, 2013 together with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short the 'IPA') barred the suit. The plaintiff firm, which is the owner and landlord of the disputed premises, filed replies to the both the applications on 4th April, 2013. The application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was dismissed on 15th July, 2013 and the one under Order VII Rule 11 was rejected on 19th July, 2013. A last opportunity was given to the defendant to lead his entire evidence on 1st August, 2013. For his inability to lead the remaining evidence on the date fixed, the defendant's evidence has been closed by the impugned order dated 1st August, 2013.
(2.) AGAINST the order dismissing the application for amendment, the petitioner has filed CR No.4915 of 2013. A separate petition has been filed impugning the order dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code which is CR No.4923 of 2013. The third petition i.e. CR No.4894 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 1st August, 2013 closing the defendant's evidence by order on 1st August, 2013. The three petitions were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(3.) THE facts common to the three petitions which are necessary for decision making and not disputed may be noticed.;