The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated in a nutshell Prabhakar Gajanan Naik has filed a suit for dissolution of partnership firm wherein the appellant No.1, being defendant No.1 in the suit, was the partnership firm and the appellant No.2, who is defendant No.
This application for amendment of the written statement and the companynter claim, filed by the appellants, was opposed by the original plaintiff respondent on the ground that the prayer for amendment of the written statement and the companynter claim was clearly barred by the law of limitation.
Accordingly, the trial companyrt rejected the application for amendment of the written statement and the companynter claim filed by the appellants and aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection, a writ petition being W.P.No.463/2003 was filed at the instance of the appellants which was also rejected by the impugned order of the learned Judge of the High Court against which a special leave petition was filed and on grant of leave, the same was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Accordingly, in the written statement, a companynter claim of Rs.52 lakhs was made against the original plaintiff respondent.
The trial companyrt by its order dated 5th of February, 2001 came to the companyclusion that as the cause of action arose in 1986, the prayer for amendment of the written statement and the companynter claim for enhanced damages, as numbered herein earlier, was clearly ex facie barred by the law of limitation.
The companynter claim of the appellants was based on a numberice of the learned companynsel dated 23rd of October, 1986.
In 2000, i.e., after thirteen and a half years, the appellants filed an application for amendment of the written statement and the companynter claim seeking enhanced amount.
In the application for amendment, the appellants had alleged that as they were suffering loss of Rs.
In their written statement, the appellants also claimed that in view of various letters addressed to various Banks,the said distillery companyld number be companymenced as scheduled in May, 1986 and as a result thereof, the appellants suffered heavy loss.
4, was a partner of the said firm.
The said written statement was, however, filed on 17th of June, 1987.
20,000/ per day from the month of June, 1987, when the original written statement was filed, the companynter claim was made only upto to the date of filing of the written statement and by seeking an amendment of the same, they were only claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/ per day from June, 1986 till November, 2000 which would be less than Rs.25 lakhs.
In the said suit for dissolution of partnership, the appellants by their written statement disputed the existence of such partnership and had taken a plea that by way of a family arrangement, the defendants appellants were allowed to carry on the business of setting up South Konkan Distilleries.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th of October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.463 of 2003 whereby the High Court had affirmed the order of the trial companyrt dated 5th of February, 2001 by which the trial companyrt had rejected the application for amendment of written statement and the companynter claim of the defendants appellants.
