(C) Mrs. Puja/Goyal wio Sh. Vipin Goyai (daughter of late Shrikant GuptaL resident of 1218, Sector 15, Faridabad, Haryana. (d) Mrs. Mukia Goyai, wfo 8h. Vishai Goya! (daughter of late Shrikant Gupta), resident of Rajaram and Brothers, Starch Factory campus, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh. 4. Smt. Parbha Agarwal, w/o B.K. Agarwal, resident of G-2/G-1 5 Charmwood Village, Surajkund, Farldabad, Haryana. 5. Subodh Kumar Gupta, s/o Rajaramjl Gupta, aged 65 years, resident of 17, Sector—4, Chandigarh. 6. Mls Rajaram and Brothers, Mandsaur. 7. Krishan Kumar Jindak, slo Ram Kumar Jindal, resident of 55, Dashehra Maiden, Uj'jain Manindra Shrlvastava learned senior counsel with Mr. Amlt Verma for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwari learned senior counsel with Mr. Shashl Bhushan for the respondent No.1. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi counsel for respondents 2(a), 2(b) 4 and 5. None for other respondents though served. WRIT PETiTtGN UNDER AR't'ICLE 22? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Mr. ORDER (01 .052009) The petitioners are assalling the correctness of otherwise of the order dated 4.5.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 3—A/1995 (Smt. Alpana Gupta vs. ‘ Subodh Kumar Gupta and others). By the order impugned teamed Court below has rejected the appiication filed by the petitioners (newly added defendants 9 to 13) for framing certain additional _ 239 issues. Petitioners have a£so challenged the order dated 17.112006 (Annexure P-2) by which the appiication fiied by the petitioners for reviewing the arder dated 4.5.2006 has been dismissed. 2. Capsuiated facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that one Surya Kant'Gupta had fried a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. in the said suit it was prayed that defendant No.1- Subodh Gupta is unnecessariiy interfering with his business and he has no claim whatsoever in the same. in the suit the original defendants were Subodh Gupta, his father Rajaram Gupta, Shreekant Gupta and Suryakant Gupta and Krishna'Kumar Jindai. Subsequently, the petitioners fiied an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civit Procedure which was granted by the court below and the petitioners were added as the defendants 9 to 13. Petitioners filed their written statement on 20.8.2005 (Annexure P46). After filing of the written statement, the petitioners med an appiication on 27.12.2005 tor framing of the certain additional issues which are reproduced as hereunder for ready reference: “7. What is the legality and validity of Rajaram’s letter dated 28.1.1993 addressed to Subodh Kumar Gupta and whether it is valid in law? 8. Whether Mrs. Neeiam Gupta, Reena Gupta, /, (Agrawal), Rashi Gupta (Mohata), Smt. Neeti Gupta (Goei) and'Subodh Kumar Rajaram (H.U.F.) defendant No. 9 to 13 are entitled for refund of their deposits with interest as ciaimed by them?” 3. Respondent No.1 opposed this application saying that these additional issues cannot be framed in the present form and this question has beenponsidered by the Court below while passing the order impugned. While passing the order impugned learned Court below has held that looking to the written statement and proposed issues, no additional issues can be framed because these additional issues are in the form of‘counter claim and for that petitioners have to file separate counter claim by paying requisite court fee. Submission of the counsei for the petitioners is that the Court could have framed the additional issues and there was no need for directing them to file separate counter claim. He submits that the parties are aiready Fighting in various courts since 1993 and there would be further muitiplicity of litigation and the court could have consolidated the suit and decided the suit finally. While challenging the order dated 17.11.2006 counsel for the petitioners submits that the review petition has been decided by the Court below by holding that the same is not maintainable simply because an appiication was filed ; under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Court below ignoring the title of the application, after considering the submission of the petitioners in the said application should have decided the review application on merits. 4. On the other hand supporting the orders dated 4.5.2006 and\\\ l respondents submits that both the orders are strictly in accordance with iaw and there is no illegality in the same. He submits that while rejecting the petitioners’ request for framing the additional issues the Court has taken a very lenient view and even gave an opportunity to the petitioners for’filing the counter claim and in stead of doing this the petitioners have assaiied the order without there being any legai \ 17.11.2006 Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the \ \ \ i \ \ ground. §n respect of order dated 17.1 1 .2006 it is submitted that the review appiication has been decided on merit, Court has given a categoricai finding on thie appiication and merely mentioning in the iaet paragraph of the order that the application is not maintainabie seems to be a clericai mistake. " 5. i have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 6, ln the written statement filed by the petitioners, the foitowing submissions have been made in paragraph No.14 which reads as under: “That the prayer made is palpabiy wrong and incorrect as already stated in para 4 to 6 of written statement that no firm can be dissolved Without discharge of its liability as iaid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1993 JT (1) SC 278 Chandra Pandyan and others vs. Sivaiinga Nader. it is further prayed that Rajaram’s alleged letter dated 28.1.1993 be declared as null and void, the deposits made by the answering defendants in the partnership firm be declared as continuing liability of the firm and its partners. it is further prayed that since this is a suit for dissolution of firm and rendition of accounts as per the counter claim filed by respondent No.1 and the issues framed by this Hon’bie Court the answering defendants claims with interest be settled in the same as per law or any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit. " 7. Learned Court below while considering this particular paragraph has given a categorical finding that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the written statement can only be claimed by filing proper counter claim and based on that two additibnal issues reproduced above, cannot be framed as requested by the petitioners. (I 8‘ A bare reading of paragraph 14 of the written statement and the preposes two issues and pteading of the parties, makes it clear that the additional issues cannot be framed unless a proper counter oiaim is filed by the petitioners, , 9. This Court is of the considered View that while passing the order impugned dated 4.5.2006 the Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and there is no iiiegality apparent on the face of record warranting interference therewith in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So far as order dated. 17.11.2006 is concerned, the review appiication filed by the petitioners has been substantially decided by the Court below though in the last paragraph it has been mentioned that the same is not maintainable as the appiication for review filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Accordingly, the petition being without substance is iiabie to be/ . dismissed. lt is hereby dismissed. l 11. At this stage ieamed counsel for the petitioners submits that \ the petitioners may be afforded an opportunity to file the counter claim as directed by the Court below in its order dated 4.5.2006. He submits that the next date fixed before the Court below is in the month of May 2009 itseif and the petitioners may be permitted to file their counter claim. This request of the counsel for the petitioners seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioners make an application seeking extension of time for filing