JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition so also the application filed by the petitioner for substitution of legal rep- resentatives of Surendra Kumar. However, with consent of learned counsel, the main revision petition itself is being disposed of. 2. By this revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the learned trial Court re- fusing the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement. The plea sought to be raised by amendment is that the petitioner has now learnt that as on the date of suit the plaintiff was not the proprietorship firm and Jagdish Rai was not the sole owner, and as such was not entitled to maintain the suit. The application was contested on the side of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court has held that the plea sought to be raised by amendment is not relevant inasmuch as, in the opinion of the learned trial Court, since the suit relates to the transaction prior to 11-8- 1988 and since the petitioner does not seek to contend that Jagdish Rai was not the sole pro- prietor even since before 11-8-88, therefore, even if it is assumed that on the date of the filing of the suit Jagdish Rai was not the sole proprietor still it is of no consequence. In other words in view of the learned trial Court, Jagdish Rai was not the sole proprietor as on the date of entering into transaction which is the relevant date. In my view prima facie this assumption of the learned trial Court is not supportable on the bare language of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the question as to whether Jagdish Rai is the sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm or not (obviously as on the date of the filing of the suit) is already a subject-matter of controversy under issue No. 6 and as such the petitioner can very well lead evidence to re- but the evidence led by the plaintiff and thereby disprove this issue and for that purpose any formal amendment in the written statement is not necessary. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner further contends that the question as to the relevance of the date i.e. date of the suit or date of the transaction is a pure question of law which will be argued at the time of final hearing of the suit in the event of learned trial Court finding that as on the date of the suit Jagdish Rai was not the sole proprietor of the plaintiff. 4. In my view, in these circumstances, the amendment application filed by the petitioner is not required to be allowed though for reasons different than those assigned by the learned trial Court. 5. The revision petition is, therefore, accordingly disposed of. The application for amendment filed by the petitioner stands rejected though for different reasons. It is made clear that in the event of.it being established on record that as on the date of the filing of the suit Jagdish Rai was not the sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm, then the learned trial Court shall afresh consider the question as to whether on that ground suit is maintainable or not and in considering this, the impugned order shall in no manner come in the way of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously complete the trial of the main suit.Ordered accordingly. *******