C.R. No. 2935 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2935 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 4, 2011 Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs. M/s Pritam Singh Iqbal Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.P. Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff- respondent for amendment of the plaint to plead that the firm M/s Pritam Singh Iqbal Singh Commission Agent was sole proprietorship firm through Pritam Singh at the time of filing of the suit but subsequently Pritam Singh had withdrawn from the firm and had became partnership concern of Iqbal Singh and Balraj Singh. C.R. No. 2935 of 2011 (O&M) [2] Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit of the plaintiff- respondent had been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff- respondent being a partnership concern was unregistered as such the suit was not maintainable. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and with the assistance of the counsel, gone through the order passed by Sh.Karnail Singh, Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Nakodar, dated August 25, 2008. The judgment shows that suit had been filed by the firm through the sold proprietorship Pritam Singh and it has not been dismissed on the ground that the suit had been filed by an unregistered partnership firm. In view of the said circumstances, allowing the amendment to rectify the title of the suit will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the defendant- petitioner. Counsel has placed reliance on M/s Melmo Agencies Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1992 (2) CCC 446 in support of contention that when right has accrued to the defendant by lapse of time it cannot be taken away by granting amendment of a plaint. He has also cited Purushottam and another Vs. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and others, 2007 (1) CCC 487, wherein in context to provisions of Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, it had been held that when a suit is filed by a partnership firm which is unregistered, subsequent registration of the firm will not cure the initial defect of filing the suit. The judgment in Purushottam’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as the judgment of M/s Melmo Agencies case (supra) is concerned, I am of the C.R. No. 2935 of 2011 (O&M) [3] opinion that since the suit of the plaintiff had not been dismissed on the ground that it had been filed by a partnership concern which was not registered, the amendment will not, in any manner, give an advantage to the plaintiff- respondent. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. May 4, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE