Rameshwar Dayal and Others vs Bhagatram and Others

Dixit, J.—This is a petition to revise an order passed by the Civil Judge First Class Guna granting leave to the Plaintiff-non-applicants to amend their plaint. In the plaint as it was originally filed it was alleged that the Plaintiff firm of Bhagatram Brijmohan entered into a partnership with the two Defendant-firms known as "Ramkrishandas Ghanshyamdas" and Tularam Girdharilal" for the supply of gram to the army of the former Gwalior State; that the partnership was dissolved on 17-7-1947 and the Defendant-firms who used to keep the accounts of the partnership business had failed to render any accounts of the partnership business to the Plaintiff-linn in spite of repeated demands.

The Defendant-firms in their written statements admitted the partnership and resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that as the partnership was between the firms, it was not lawful. Thereupon the Plaintiff-firm sought leave to amend the plaint so as to allege that the partnership was between the members of the Plaintiff-firm in their individual capacity and members of the Defendant-firms in their individual capacity. The suit was originally filed by Bhagatram, Brijmohan and Shiv Shankarlal declaring themselves as owners of the firm Bhagatram Brijmohan. By the amendment these Plaintiffs sought to make their sons also Plaintiffs in the suit on the ground that they were also partners of the firm Bhagatram Brijmohan. The Defendant opposed the grant of leave for amendment of the plaint saying that the amendment altogether altered the character of the suit and the cause of action. The learned Civil Judge rejected the objection of the Defendants and allowed the amendment.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition must be dismissed. To me it appears that if the learned Civil Judge had instead of stating abstract propositions of law with regard to amendment of plaints, taken the trouble to show how the amendment did not alter the nature of the suit and the cause of action, the applicants would have had no ground for coming up in revision to this Court. The amendment was obviously prompted by the objection of the applicants that there could be no partnership between firms and that, therefore, the partnership alleged by the Plaintiff-firm was unlawful. Strictly speaking the amendment made in the plaint was not necessary. The reason is that when Bhagatram, Brijmohan and Shiv Shankarlal declaring themselves as owners of the firm Bhagatram Brijmohan alleged that their firm entered into a partnership with the two Defendant-firm of which Rameshwardayai, Ramkishandas, Chhitarmal and Ratanlal were partners, in fact and in law it meant that the three individuals who were partners in the firm Bhagatram Brijmohan joined with the four individuals who were members of the firm Ramkishandas Ghanshyamdas and Tularam Girdharilal, and carried on business together as partners for the supply of gram to the Gwalior Army.

A firm as such has no existence in law, and the law regards only the individual partners. A firm is merely a collective name of the individuals who are members of the partnership and as such one firm cannot become partner with another firm. But from this it does not follow that if a firm has in fact entered as a partner in another, firm the partnership unlawful on that gound. What happens in such(sic) a case is that the partners in one firm become(sic) partners in the other firm in their individual capacity and the rights and obligations of the (sic)firm are really the rights and obligations of(sic) individual partners composing the firm, The (sic)legal position has been made very clear several decisions.

In- Kader Bux Omer Hyat Vs. Bukt Behari and Another, it was held that a firm(sic) is nothing but an association of individuals,(sic) that when such an association under a firm nan (sic) entered into a partnership with another in (sic) vidual or another association of individuals is not the aggregate that combines with (sic) individual, but the individuals composing the (sic) aggregate. It was further pointed out in the (sic) case that there was no legal obstacle to (sic) members of a firm entering into partnership (sic) with other individuals or members of other (sic) firms, and the mere fact that in such business (sic) or contract they describe themselves as a (sic) does not make the association unlawful and (sic) suit for partnership accounts by them is m(sic)tainable.

To the same effect are the decisions in Ghisulal v. Gumbhirmull AIR 1938 Cal (sic)(B);- Firm Brij Kishore Ram Sarup Vs. Sheo Charan Lal and ''Mahomed Abdul Latiff v. Ismail'' AIR 19 Mad 9 (D). In the Allahabad case it was,a(sic) made clear that where a firm enters into partnership with other individuals, one of partnership of such firm can sue for accounts'', behalf of all in accordance with Order 30, CPC It is thus plain that by amending plaint so as to make it very clear that partnership was between the partners of three firms in their individual capacity, Plaintiffs have only stated the true legal position, (sic) which they had confused by say originally that their firm had entered into partnership with the two Defendant-firms.(sic)The amendment thus does not alter the nature the suit which even after the amendment mains one for general partnership accoun(sic) Nor does it alter the cause of action for (sic) suit.

In this view of the matter no objection(sic)be taken to the addition of the sons of Bhagatram, Brijmohan and Shiv Shankarlal as Plaintiffs in their capacity as partners of the firm (sic) Bhagatram Brijmohan. The question whet (sic) they were or were not partners of the (sic) Bhagatram Brijmohan and as such entered(sic)partnership with the two Defendant-firms however, a different matter. There is nothing to prevent them from joining as Plaintiffs the suit claiming to be partners with the defendant (sic) in the partnership business of supply(sic) gram to the Gwalior Army.

For these reasons I uphold the order (sic) the trial Court allowing the amendment of (sic) plaint. In the circumstances of the case (sic) will be no order as to costs of this petition.