Allowed

Manishwar Kaur v. M/S Northern Coir and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2024CR/3363/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against order allowing amendment of plaint adding a prayer declaring land to be a firm asset. The plaintiff had earlier sued claiming the same property as benami and withdrew that suit. Holding the pleas mutually destructive and the amendment not bona fide, the High Court set aside the order and dismissed the amendment application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Manishwar Kaur Vs M/S Northern Coir and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

[242] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

CR-3363-2017(O&M) Date of D ecision : 05.12.2024

¶3

Manishw a r Kaur …Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

M/s Nort h ern Coir and others ….Respondents

¶6

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶7

Present: Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocat e with Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocat e for the petitioner.

¶8

None for respondents No.1 & 2.

¶9

Mr. Samarth Sagar, Addl. A G , Haryana for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶10

Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advoc a te for respondent No.10.

¶11

¶12

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

[1] Counsel for respondent No.10 brings to the notice of this C o urt that vide order dated 25.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Ju n ior Division), Panchkula, name of responde n t No.10 already stands struck off from the a rray of parties in the main suit and prays for deletion of the n a me in the pre s ent revision petition as the revi s ion petition was filed thereafter. [2] The aforesaid position i s not disputed by the cou n sel represent i ng the petitioner.

¶14

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.11 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CR-3363 - 2017(O&M) -2-

¶16

[3] Registry to delete the name o f respondent No.10 from the a r ray

¶17

of parties .

¶18

[4] The present revision petiti o n is directed against order d a ted 01.03.20 1 7 passed by the learned Civil J udge (Junior Division), Panchk u la, whereby the application seeking amen d ment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff- r espondents stands allowed .

¶19

[5] Plaintiff filed suit, claiming f ollowing reliefs:-

¶20

“ It is, therefore, respectful l y prayed that the suit of the plainti ff be decreed and a decree for declar a tion to the effect that the plaintiff fir m is a registered Partnership firm ru n ning under the name and style of " M /s. Northern Coir" Factory situa t ed at Village Saidpura, Chandig a rhBarwala Road, Tehsil DeraBas s i, District Mohali, (Punjab),which was registered with the office of th e defendant No.3 vide certificate N O .37 dated 07.05.2004 and the same w as further registered with the defen d ant No.10 vide certificate No.1193/2 0 04-2005 under Section 59 of the In d ian Partnership Act, 1932) may kind ly be passed in favour of the plaintif f and against the defendants alongwith cost of the suit.

¶21

It is further prayed that a decree for Declaration to the effect that the alleged Deed of Dissolution o f partnership dated 29.09.2006 bet w een the plaintiff NO.2 and defendant No.1 is wrong, illegal, null and v oid, forged and fabricated by the d e fendant No.1 in order to grab the assets/properties of the plaintiff N o .1 and the same is not binding upo n the rights of the plaintiffs and the sa m e is liable to be set aside/cancelled m ay kindly be passed in favour of t he plaintiff and against the defend a nts alongwith cost of the suit.

¶22

It is further prayed that a decree for Declaration to the effect that the Consent Letter dated 22.09.2 0 06 alleged to be executed by the plaintiff No.2 in favour of ChiefManager, State Bank of India, Branch Mohali ( Defendant No.10) is also wrong, ill e gal, null and void, abinitio, not bin d ing upon the rights of the plaintiff No . 2 as the same is result of fraud and t h e

¶23

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.11 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CR-3363 - 2017(O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

same has been procured by the d efendant No.1 by forging the signat u res of the plaintiff No.2 and the sam e is liable to be set aside/cancelled, m ay kindly be passed in favour of t he plaintiff and against the defend a nts alongwith cost of the suit.

¶27

It is further prayed that a decree for Permanent injunction, restraining the defendant No.2 and 3 from registering the Deed of Canc e llation of Partnership Deed of the f irm M/s. Northern Coir and furthe r restraining the defendant No.11 fr o m cancelling/converting the partner s hip firm from the name of plaintiff N o .1 to the sole/individual name of th e defendant No.1 and further restrain i ng the defendant No.1 herself or thr o ugh her agents, servants, assignees o r through her power of attorney se l ling from the assets of the plaintiff No .1 illegally and forcibly and furthe r restraining the defendant No.1 fro m impersonating herself as Prop of p l aintiff No.1in order to grab the as s ets of the plaintiff firm and furthe r restraining the defendant No.4 to 7 and 9 to 11 from allowing the defen d ant No.1 to act as sole Prop of the p laintiff NO.1 for all the intents and p urposes, may kindly be passed in fa vour of the plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith costs of the s u it.

¶28

Any other relief to whic h the plaintiff deemed entitled to, th e in facts and circumstances of this c a se, may also be granted in favour o f the plaintiff. ”

¶29

[6] In the plaint itself, there w a s a specific averment made w ith respect t o land purchased vide sale dee d dated 15.03.2004, which read s as under:-

¶30

“10. That after separating fro m the Plaintiff NO.1, the defendant No . 1 is taking undue benefit of her name on the partnership firmas partner a n d of properties bought in her name b y the plaintiff NO.2. The defendant N o.1 started threatening to dispose of f the assets/properties of the plaintiff N o.1 illegally and unlawfully. Under t h e compelled circumstances, the plaintiff No.2 filed a Civil Suit for de c laring the plaintiff NO.2 as owne r in possession of the land/factory of t he firm M/s. Northern Coir and also t o

¶31

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.11 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CR-3363 - 2017(O&M) -4-

¶33

declare the Sale Deed dated 15.03.2004 in favour of the defendant No . 1 is illegal being a Benami Tran s action and also to grant perma n ent injunction restraining the d e fendant NO.1 from alienating the properties/assets of the plaintiff N O.1; before the Ld. Court of Additi o nal Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dera B assi. The said suit is still pending for adjudication. ”

¶34

[7] Plaintiff filed application, s eeking amendment of the pl a int. The prop o sed amendment was to amend the prayer clause by incorpora t ing additiona l relief of declaration. The prop o sed amendment reads as under:-

¶35

“ It is therefore humbly pr a yed to the Hon'ble Court to allow the amendment by away of additio n of relief by "declaration that the l and property measuring 3000 Sq. Mtrs comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No.55/88, Khasra No.43//24/1/2 (3-0), where the plaintiff firm of M/s Northern Coir, village Saidpu r a, Derabassi is situated, is the a sset property of the plaintiff firm and f urther that the title standing in the n a me of defendant no.1 i.e. Manishwa r Kaur has since elapsed after thro w ing the said land property into the common stock of the plaintiff partner s hip firm in 2004-05", in the interest o f justice. ”

¶36

[8] Counsel for the petitioner s u bmits that the property qua w h ich declarati o n is being sought by way o f proposed amendment, was a lso subject- m atter of the earlier civil suit, w hich was pending at the tim e of filing of t he said present suit. The same i s evident from the prayer claus e of the said p laint, which has been placed o n record as Annexure P-5. Rele v ant part thereof reads as under:-

¶37

“ A decree for permanent i n junction restraining the defendant n o.1, his agents, servants or represent a tive from alienating, wasting, dilutin g ,

¶38

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.11 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CR-3363 - 2017(O&M) -5-

¶40

encumbering, mortgaging the whole assets of the partnership firm/factory in the name & style as M/s No r thern Coir, including the land pro p erty measuring 03-Bighas 00-Biswas comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No.5 5 /88, Khasra No.43//24/1/2(3-0) and b u siness premises built over the said l and situated at village Saidpura, T ehsil DeraBassi, District S.A.S. N a gar (Mohali), illegally and unlawfu l ly and further a decree for perma n ent injunction restraining the d ef endants, their agents, servants or representatives from creating an y hindrance for entry in and exit fro m the factory premises, to the plaintiff, illegally, forcibly or in any other ma n ner may kindly be passed in favour o f the plaintiff against the defendants. ”

¶41

[9] Counsel thus, submits that t h e plaintiff filed civil suit, see k ing declarati o n qua the same sale deed and q u a the same property, claiming i t to be a ben a mi transaction. Having withd r awn the said suit vide order d a ted 20.08.20 1 4, he cannot be allowed to ta k e a somersault and claim the s uit property t o be an asset of firm and thus l iable to be treated as per the te r ms of Sectio n 48 of the Indian Partnership A c t in the present suit.

¶42

[10] Counsel submits that witho u t considering the aforesaid f a cts, the appli c ation seeking amendment of th e plaint has been allowed. [11] Respondents No.1 & 2 despite service has remai n ed unrepres e nted.

¶43

[12] In the considered opinion o f this Court, the plaintiff canno t be allowed t o raise mutually destructive pleas in different suit qua s a me property. Already having initiated pr o ceedings, claiming the property, which is t he subject-matter of the propos e d prayer as a benami transactio n ,

¶44

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.11 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CR-3363 - 2017(O&M) -6-

¶46

he canno t be allowed to turn back and claim the property to be an asse t of partnersh i p firm. Learned Trial Court h aving failed to take the same i nto consider a tion allowed the amendment w h ich was not bona fide in nature.

¶47

[13] In view of above, the i m pugned order dated 01.03.2 0 17 (Annexu r e P-1) is ordered to be set asi d e. The present revision petitio n is allowed . Application filed by the plain t iff seeking amendment of plai n t is dismisse d .

¶48

[14] All pending miscellaneou s application(s), if any, sta n ds disposed o ff .

¶49

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶50

05.12.20 2 4 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶51

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.12.11 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manishwar Kaur v. M/S Northern Coir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manishwar Kaur v. M/S Northern Coir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maninder Singh and Others Vs Manjit Kaur and Others

Uco Bank Vs Uma Rani

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Neelam and Ors.

Roshni Devi and Ors. Vs Satta and Ors.

Birmati and Another Vs Vijay and Others

Pappu Vs Karnail Singh & Ors.