t SIKRs E "*" UL? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. ?2>^\& OF 2010. -f p'" PETITIONER Defendant ^ ,.^>' ''.-•'' ^^> ^69.'-' Sanjay Khetan, Son of Shri L. P. Khetan, aged about 36 years, R/o. 13th North Revenue Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C. G.). VERSUS •y?- RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs Raees Khan, Son of Hatim Khan Parthes S. K. Iron and Steel Industa-ies, Resident of Mouhada Para, Raipur, District (C.G.) i--::ti i'syi'iiVtMvwvfi f^j ll;'sV.glte;20 "(IB'^r.i8 IE1SS1&?K^^8^S "•^^ 2. S. K. Iron and Steel Industries Works Industrial Area Gondwara, Ring Road Uria, Regd. Office, C/o Rani Sati Market Shop No. 1, Jairam Complex M. G. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner, above named, most humbly and respectfullysubmits as under:- ~^^ ..^ i w^: >„ ::".,....\ >,„ ''V ^^^ ^)'^,.. gltsls<is. "'%&, sfe^,s;;^s*®^^ S'''£;S!SS2EgS8' Defendant HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.3718 of 2010 Sanjay Khetan Versus Raees Khan and another 0/Vrit Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. SharmaJ.) Mr.G.D.Washwani, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.P.Sharma, counsel for respondent No-2. ?tS 1. Heard. 2. I have perused the order dated 23.6.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-lt, Raipur in Civil Suit No.42-.Af'09, whereby the app!icatioR for amendment of writtan statement filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by fiiing application for amsndment the present petitioner is seetong to amsnd his written statement relating to non-registration of plaintifFs firm and its effect which is neeessary for disposal of the suit. 4. On ths othsr hand, leamed counsei for respondent No.2 submits that this is a suit for dissoiution of firm and for accounts of the firm, therefore, the plasntiff is not required to ptead the factum of registration or question of registration of firm wouid not be debarred the ptaintiff's firm from fiiing the application for disa)iution of firm and snforcsment of any right ineludlng for accounts in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the indian Partnership Act, 1932. Leamed counse! ptaced reliance in the matter of V.Subramaniam v. Rajssh Raghuvandra Rao {(2988) 5 SCC 688} in which She Apex Court has heid that any legisistion to compel the registration of firm would be arbitrary and excessh/e and is not :M^ llplM' - ! "'a-0.l,•••%. ?^rp «*-!i8!'Ss'E®' 3;:%s^Si?^ 5. Originaiiy, the ptaintiff has filsd the suit for dissolution of firm and for accounts of other firms/enterprises in the name of Baba Iron and Steei and Mahaveer Enterprises. The present petitioner has filed the appljcation for amendment mamly on the ground of maintatnability of ths suit on account of r^istration of firm and in the light of the aforesaid suit also reiating to suit for accounts of two other firms. S. Considering the prayer of amendment, especiaily in the light of accounts reiating to two other firms for which the respondent has not fflad susf for dissoiution of these firms, present amendment prayed by the petitionsr may be necessary for adjudteatton of dispute between fhe parties. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition is ailowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. Appiication fiied on behalf of ihe petitioner is aitowed. Let necsssary amendment shali be carried out within two weeks. Respondentsmay make consequentiai amendment: No order asto costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge