Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S LUXMI GINING AND OIL MILLS versus S.S.JAIN SABHA, KHANNA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Luxmi Gining and Oil Mills v. S.S.Jain Sabha, Khanna & Ors - CR-1727-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1514 (7 March 2006)

CR No.1727 of 2004 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 1727 of 2004

Date of Decision: 17.03.2006

M/s Luxmi Gining and Oil Mills ..Petitioner.

Vs.

S.S.Jain Sabha, Khanna and others ..Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Anil Bansal, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

ORDER

The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 2.3.2004 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence was declined primarily on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by an order passed by the leaned trial court in CR No.1727 of 2004 (2)

terms of the order earlier passed by this Court granting one opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the issues framed was whether the plaintiff firm is a registered firm? The plaintiff has led evidence to prove the said fact but an argument has been raised that the suit is not maintainable by a firm as two of the partners of the plaintiff firm have died. It is contended that General Rule contained in Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act that firm stands dissolved has an exception in respect of the dissolution of firm in terms of the condition of partnership deed, therefore, the plaintiff wants to produce partnership deed dated 14.8.1971.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is causing manifest injustice to the petitioner. The issue framed was only to the effect whether the plaintiff firm is registered firm. The onus of proof of the said issue has been discharged by producing Forms A and C from the office of the Registrar of Firms, therefore, the objection raised during the course of argument is required to be dealt with by producing the partnership deed. Since a question has arisen about the maintainability of the suit by the firm on account of death of a partner, the said partnership deed would be relevant to determine the question arising between the CR No.1727 of 2004 (3)

parties. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff is directed to prove the partnership deed on the record of the case in accordance with law.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 24.4.2006 for further proceedings.

(Hemant Gupta)

17.03.2006 Judge

rp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.