IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23558 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.358/2000 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.SUDHI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAMANUJAM, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.N.M.MADHU, SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- M/S.PERFETTI INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT A-10 GREEN PARK,NEW DELHI 110 017 AND REGIONAL OFFICE SITUATED AT 3RD FLOOR, KRISHNA CHAMBERS, 2/21, VTH CROSS, KONENA AGRAHARA, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 017 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF SALES AND MARKETING. THE RESPONDENT COMPANY PRESENTLY KNOWN AS PERFETTI VAN MALLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,47TH MILE STONE,DELHI-JAIPUR HIGHWAY,MANESAR-122 050, GURGAON, HARYANA INSTEAD OF M/S.PERFETTI INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT A-10 GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI - 110 017, AND REGIONAL OFFICE SITUATED AT 3RD FLOOR, KRISHNA CHAMBERS, 2/21, VTH CROSS, KONENA AGRAHARA, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 017. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.25732 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.23558 AND 25732 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT These two writ petitions are filed in respect of a suit O.S No. 358/2000 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. The above suit admittedly was instituted by a firm for a decree of prohibitory injunction, nearly nine years ago. Subsequently the plaintiff moved an amendment application so as to seek additional relief of settlement of accounts and recovery of money. Case canvassed in this writ petition is that such amendment was allowed only in 2007 pursuant to judgment passed by this court in a writ petition. When the case came up in the list for trial, since the plaintiff was not prepared to prosecute the suit, it was dismissed for default. An application moved by the plaintiff to restore the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure was also W.P.(C).Nos.23558 Page numbers AND 25732 OF 2009 dismissed by the trial court. In the appeal preferred against that order of dismissal fixing a time limit for the disposal of the suit the District Judge allowed the appeal. The trial court was directed to dispose the suit before 30/08/2009. An application moved for extension of time before the learned District Judge for disposal of the suit was disallowed. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order in the interlocutory application passed by the learned Sub Judge, writ petition No.23558/2009 has been filed. Meanwhile an application was moved before the trial court stating that the firm has been reconstituted and so much so, some other persons who have obtained interest over the firm have to be substituted in the place of the original plaintiff, the firm. That amendment application was disallowed by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition No.25732/2009 by the persons who have W.P.(C).Nos.23558 Page numbers AND 25732 OF 2009 sought for such substitution moving for amendment of the suit. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that consequent to the dismissal of Ext.P5 order disallowing the amendment application moved for substitution of the plaintiff, the suit was also dismissed. Such being the position, the orders challenged in the two writ petitions before this court are not in respect of any pending suit before the court. I do not want to go into the merit of the applications which are challenged in the present writ petitions in the circumstances indicated above. But it has to be stated that the plaintiff firm which has instituted the suit is sought to be substituted by some other W.P.(C).Nos.23558 Page numbers AND 25732 OF 2009 persons who are stated to be the erstwhile partners of the plaintiff firm by an amendment moved in the suit. The relief claimed in the suit included one for settlement of accounts with the defendant. How far such an amendment could be allowed is a question to be looked into with reference to the Partnership Act covering the rights and liabilities of a firm in respect of contracts entered with third parties. In the present writ petition, I do not want to express any opinion on the proposed amendment, since the counsel submitted, an application has been moved for restoring the suit which was dismissed for default. Both these writ petitions lack merit, and they are dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv