JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Revision is directed against an order dated 12.9.2008 passed in original Suit No. 1055 of 2002, Ravindra Kohli v. Harish Chandra Kohli and others, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1 Kanpur Nagar whereby the amendment application filed by the Revisionist/plaintiff has been rejected. 2. The Revisionist plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of House No. 111-A/89 Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and is the shareholder to the extent of 60% share of the firm M/s. Kohli Constructions Company by virtue of a registered will deed dated 4.9.1990 executed by his grand mother Smt. Pushpawanti. 3. By the amendment application (170-ka) he sought addition of two paragraphs in his plaint as paragraph No. 14-A and 14-B. By paragraph 14-A he pleaded that M/s. Kohli Constructions Company was initially constituted in the year 1963 by Sri Natha Mal Kohli wherein Sri Natha Mal Kohli, Sri Desh Raj Kohli and Sri Harish Chandra Kohli were partners. On 19.4.1969 Sri Natha Mal Kohli died and according to his will his wife Smt Pushpawanti Kohli became a partner and the company which was registered with the Registrar with registration No. 90504 was formed. Sri Desh Raj died on 4.11.1986 and M/s. Kohli Constructions Company was reconstituted wherein Sri Ravindra Kumar Kohli (plaintiff revisionist) was made a partner to the extent of 25% by the partnership deed dated 7.11.1986. The fresh partnership was registered with registration No. K-2426 and therefore the firm having registration No. 90504 came to an end and the entire assets and liabilities were taken over by the reconstituted firm having registration No. K-2426. The defendant respondents have obtained form No. 7 and 8 from the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur to show that M/s. Kohli Constructions Company registration No. 90504 is still in existence. 4. By paragraph 14-B it was stated that form No. 7 and 8 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur is void since it was taken by misrepresentation on the basis of forged papers behind the back of the partners of the firm. 4. By paragraph 14-B it was stated that form No. 7 and 8 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur is void since it was taken by misrepresentation on the basis of forged papers behind the back of the partners of the firm. It was prayed that the said information in Form 7 and 8 should be amended by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur and by an order dated 21.4.2006 the High Court required such an issue to be framed and decided by the Trial Court. 5. The order dated 21.4.2006 was passed in Special Appeal No. 385 of 2006 (Harish Chandra Kohli v. Ravindra Kohli and others) wherein an order dated 7.3.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 28 of 2005 (Ravindra Kohli v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and others) had been set aside. The Court found that the civil suit between the parties is pending consideration wherein the plaintiff had sought a declaration claiming rights of partnership in the old firm in which his grand mother was a partner. It found that the information which was submitted in form 7 and 8 were informations under Section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and such information was given by the appellant (Harish Chandra Kohli). The Special Appeal Court recorded that the Civil Court is fully empowered to issue any direction for amending any entry registering a firm including the certificate issued by the Registrar in response to information submitted in form 7 and 8 and held that the issue as to whether the newly constituted firm was constituted after dissolution of the old firm or the new firm was a separate firm having no connection with the old firm are issues of fact which require evidence for adjudication. Consequently the Special Appeal Court gave liberty to the parties to get their rights adjudicated before the Civil Court in light of the observations made in the judgment dated 21.4.2006. 6. The defendant respondent filed objection (172-ga) to the amendment application and stated that he had filed his written statement and counter claim to the unamended plaint. Consequently the Special Appeal Court gave liberty to the parties to get their rights adjudicated before the Civil Court in light of the observations made in the judgment dated 21.4.2006. 6. The defendant respondent filed objection (172-ga) to the amendment application and stated that he had filed his written statement and counter claim to the unamended plaint. According to him the judgment dated 21.4.2006 passed in the Special Appeal clearly recorded that the issue regarding the old firm and new firm can be decided by the Civil Court on the evidence of the parties and there was no direction for amending the plaint. He has stated that the Revisionist plaintiff was never a partner of the Company having registration No. 90504 and no information was given to the authority as required under Sections 63 and 72 of the Indian Partnership Act regarding closure of the said firm having registration No. 90504. He has pleaded that an earlier application No. 139-ga filed by the plaintiff revisionist has already been rejected and that the plaintiff revisionist was not a partner of the firm having registration No. 90504 and such order has obtained finality. 7. The Trial Court considered the pleadings of the parties and held that the amendment proposed by the plaintiff were already available in the pleadings of the plaint and an earlier application No. 18-ga containing similar facts has already been disposed of on 26.9.2003. It also held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for adjudication of the suit and there is no direction in the special appeal for affecting amendment in the plaint. The Trial Court therefore has rejected the amendment application. 8. Sri Ravindra Kumar Kohli has appeared in person and has in effect argued referring to the facts which have been pleaded by him in the amendment application to state that the new firm having registration No. K-2426 was constituted after the old firm having registration No. 90504 was closed down and its assets and liabilities were taken over by the new firm. He has reiterated that the form No. 7 and 8 were fraudulently submitted by the defendant respondents before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur and therefore the same requires to be amended by the Civil Court. He has reiterated that the form No. 7 and 8 were fraudulently submitted by the defendant respondents before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur and therefore the same requires to be amended by the Civil Court. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, 2001 (1) ARC 5, to state that amendment should be allowed and hyper-technical approach or technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in administration of justice. He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 498 , to submit that Court should be extremely liberal in granting amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is being caused to the other side. 9. The respondent Sri Harish Chandra Kohli has appeared in person and resisted this Revision on his own behalf as also on behalf of defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He has raised various factual arguments and submits that since the revisionist is not a partner of the firm he has wrongly verified the affidavit in this Revision claiming himself to be a partner of the firm. According to him the application for amendment is barred under Order 30 Rule 1 and 2, CPC as also in view of various provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and the firm M/s. Kohli Construction Company was in existence even prior to the birth of the Revisionist plaintiff hence the firm which was reconstituted in 1986 having registration No. 90504 continues to exist because the Revisionist was never a partner therein. As such he has no cause of action and the amendment is barred by limitation because it seeks to bring in facts of the year 1986 by claiming cancellation of the information given by the defendant respondent in form 7 and 8 to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur. He has further submitted that partnership of a firm under the Indian Partnership Act cannot be acquired by virtue of a will of a deceased partner and has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax v. M/s. E. Kellukutty, (1985) 4 SCC 35 . He has further submitted that partnership of a firm under the Indian Partnership Act cannot be acquired by virtue of a will of a deceased partner and has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax v. M/s. E. Kellukutty, (1985) 4 SCC 35 . For submitting that the suit itself is bad since there is no cause of action alleged against the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are mother and brother of the plaintiff revisionist he has placed reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and others, AIR 1960 SC 335 ; Girjanandani Devi and others v. B.N. Chaudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 ; R.S. Gupta v. B.N. Inter College, (1987) 2 SCC 555 and A.K. Gupta & Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 . According to the defendant respondents an application under Order VIII Rule 10, CPC is still pending before the Trial Court. 10. Having considered the submissions made by the parties a perusal of the plaint, which is available as Annexure 8 to the affidavit filed along with the Revision petition indicates that the Revisionist plaintiff has pleaded his rights in the firm as also the house by virtue of a will dated 4.9.1990 which came into effect on 1.6.2002 when the executor of the will Smt. Pushpawanti Kohli (grandmother of the Revisionist) died. His claim to the firm is on the basis of the aforesaid will to the extent of 60% by saying that he already had 25% share in the firm and has inherited 35% share of his grandmother after her death on 1.6.2002 by virtue of her registered will dated 4.9.1990. He has pleaded that he has never retired from the firm and his father Sri Harish Chandra Kohli (defendant) has been managing the firm and the plaintiff Revisionist earlier had full faith in him but when the defendants came to know about the registered will in favour of the plaintiff Revisionist they got annoyed with him and started harassing the plaintiff Revisionist by manipulating the accounts of the firm. He claims to have 60% share in the firm and is sole owner of the house by virtue of the registered will. He claims to have 60% share in the firm and is sole owner of the house by virtue of the registered will. It is alleged that the defendants have produced a forged will dated 5.5.2002 and got their names entered in the revenue records wherein the plaintiff Revisionist is contesting the matter. The relief claimed by the plaintiff Revisionist is of declaration regarding his 60% holding in the firm and ownership of the house in question. 11. From the aforesaid pleadings it appears that the plaintiff Revisionist has come up with a specific case before the Trial Court regarding 60% share in the company by virtue of his already having 25% share in the company which was registered as registration No. K-2426 in the year 1986 and by virtue of the registered will executed in his favour by his grandmother who was a partner of the company having registration No. 90504. In the amendment which he has sought the very same pleadings are sought to be incorporated in the plaint by paragraph 14-A and 14-B. 12. In Special Appeal No. 385 of 2006 this Court was considering the very same issue regarding the question whether the information submitted by the defendant respondent in form 7 and 8 before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur regarding the firm having registration No. 90504 and it was clearly recorded that the issue as to whether the newly constituted firm was constituted after dissolution of the old firm or the new firm was a separate firm having no connection with the old firm are issues of fact which require evidence for adjudication. The plaint admittedly has raised this very same dispute and the defendant respondents have filed their written statement along with their counter claim which is at variance. When the propositions of fact and law have already been pleaded in the plaint and contested by the defendants the adjudication of the dispute would require evidence and there is no reason why the very same facts pertaining to the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in his support require to be added in the plaint by seeking the aforesaid amendment. As held by the Special Appeal Court the issue requires evidence for adjudication. As held by the Special Appeal Court the issue requires evidence for adjudication. Since the pleadings are already there and are at variance no further pleading was necessary for the same and also because the parties are at liberty to get their rights adjudicated before the Civil Court by leading their evidence in the form of documents referred to by the plaintiff and the defendant. 13. In the amendment application the plaintiff Revisionist has also sought incorporation of an issue in the plaint. Admittedly the plaint does not require to be amended by incorporating an issue between the parties. Issues are framed under Order 14, CPC after ascertaining upon what material propositions of facts or of law the parties are at variance and upon which the right decision of the case appears to depend. The parties are free to get their issues framed by the Court and no such incorporation in the plaint is necessary nor proper. Consequently the amendment sought by the plaintiff Revisionist has rightly been refused by the Trial Court and the parties can get the issues framed and adjudicated by the Trial Court. 14. For the aforesaid reasons no interference is required in the impugned order. This Revision has no force it is accordingly rejected. 15. No order is passed as to costs. ————