Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 539 (KAR)

Gopal Reddy v. State of Karnataka

2015-06-01

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 29-6-2011 impugned at Annexure-M to the petition. 2. The petitioners claim that they along with Smt. Sudha Shivaramegowda had entered into a partnership which was reduced into a deed dated 9-5-1998 and had been registered in accordance with law. The partnership was thereafter reconstituted whereunder Smt. Sudha Shivaramegowda was not continued as a partner and thereafter it was dissolved. With regard to the said proceedings, Smt. Sudha Shivaramegowda, contending that she continues to be a partner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 2462 of 2010 which is pending consideration before the Civil Court. Though the contention of the plaintiff has been prima facie not accepted by the Court below, by the order dated 23-10-2010 while considering an application for temporary injunction, the issues raised in the suit are yet to be decided. In that circumstance, the relevant partnership deed that is to be taken into consideration and the right of the parties to continue in the partnership is to be decided. 3. Pending consideration of these aspects, the respondents have issued the impugned endorsement where under it is stated that the document as claimed by the petitioners dated 9-5-1998 is not the document under which the partnership has been constituted, but it is under a document bearing No. 1374/1998-99, which has been registered on 4-2-1999. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by such endorsement are assailing the same before this Court. 4. The respondents have filed the statement of objections and a detail reference has been made to the provision under which the power is available to the Registrar to rectify the mistakes in the register as provided under Section 64 of the Partnership Act, 1932. In that light, it is contended that from a perusal of the records maintained by the respondents, it is seen that the partnership to which the petitioners claim is in fact dated 18-5-1998 and the second petitioner herein is not a partner, but one Sri B.S. Chandru along with the first respondent and Smt. Sudha Shivaramegowda are shown as the partners. In that light, it is contended that when there is no reference available with the respondents to indicate that the partnership was constituted under a document dated 9-5-1998, the appropriate entries in that regard has been made and the endorsement has been issued to that effect. In that light, it is contended that when there is no reference available with the respondents to indicate that the partnership was constituted under a document dated 9-5-1998, the appropriate entries in that regard has been made and the endorsement has been issued to that effect. The very document produced by the petitioners at Annexure-N is referred to point out that the contents there of is the correct position that was available in the records of the respondents. 5. In the background of the rival contentions, a perusal of the papers would disclose that the claim of the petitioners herein is with regard to the partnership having been constituted under a document dated 9-5-1998 and also with regard to reconstitution and dissolution thereof. Though such contentions have been urged by the petitioners herein, the very same contentions would arise for consideration in the suit in O.S. No. 2462 of 2010 wherein the petitioners herein who were defendants 1 and 2 have entered appearance and filed their detailed written statement. In the said suit, the said Smt. Sudha Shivaramegowda who is the plaintiff has also sought a declaration with regard to she not having retired from the partnership firm and that it be declared that she continues to be a partner of the firm which is arrayed as defendant 4 therein. The nature of the relief claimed therein would relate to the constitution of the firm and the subsequent action resorted to by the parties either for reconstitution or dissolution. 6. In the plaint, a reference has been made to the documents dated 9-5-1998 as also 18-5-1998. Those are all issues which would be considered by the Trial Court based on the evidence that would be tendered. While doing so, the relevant documents under which the partnership was constituted would also be answered by the Trial Court. 7. Therefore, in a matter of the present nature, when the larger issue relating to the partnership regarding which the respondents have passed the impugned order is pending before the Civil Court, it would be appropriate for the Civil Court to decide all questions including the relevant documents under which the partnership was constituted which could be relied upon by the respondents to make appropriate entries in the register. On the other hand, if the respondents independently arrive at a conclusion at this juncture to rectify any mistakes which according to the respondents has occurred in the records, it would amount to prejudging the issues which would in fact be decided by the Civil Court based on the evidence. 8. Having arrived at the above conclusion, in a normal circumstance, it would have been appropriate to quash the impugned endorsement and thereafter allow the parties to agitate the matter before the Trial Court. However, in the instant facts, considering that the respondents herein are not the defendants in the suit and ultimately the entries in the records would have to be made based on the judgment to be rendered by the Trial Court and also taking note of the fact that the endorsement impugned has not seen the light of the day as it had been stayed by this Court at the first instance, the order impugned herein shall be kept in abeyance by the respondents. On the Civil Court deciding the suit, the parties shall approach the second respondent with the judgment rendered therein. The second respondent at that stage shall look into the judgments and thereafter enter the relevant document to be a valid document as per the decision rendered by the Civil Court. The order which is impugned and kept in abeyance shall at that stage yield to the judgment rendered by the Trial Court on the same attaining finality and the entries in the records of the second respondent shall continue to subsist in terms of the judgment of the Civil Court. 9. Further, it is also made clear that if for any reason the plaintiff before the Trial Court does not prosecute the suit or if the suit is ultimately not decided on its merits and the questions raised therein are not answered, it would be open for the petitioners herein to bring to the notice of the second respondent that the suit has been disposed of without there being a decision on merits. In such eventuality, the second respondent shall provide opportunity to the petitioners to consider the contentions that they would put forth to attack the impugned endorsement which is kept in abeyance and based on such contentions, the second respondent shall thereafter pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.