The misdescription being obvious, the Trial Court allowed the plaintiffs application on 19.8.1955 permitting defend ant No.
The Receiver Shri K.S. Mishra Advocate, was required to act in terms of the companypromise between the parties which required companyfirma tion of accounts from the accountbooks of the partnership and thereafter distribution of the surplus between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
One of the agreed terms was that defendant No.
Accordingly, on 16.11.1959 the Court passed the final decree in the suit stating that the partnership stood dissolved with effect from 27.4.1959 and the defendant Nos.
Notwithstanding the above facts, defendant Nos.
This suit was companytested by the petitioners, inter alia on the ground that it was barred by res judicata by the earlier adjudication between the parties and also that it was number maintainable.
1959 passed on the basis of the order dated 5.3.1956 in Civil Suit No.
Some disputes having arisen between the parties, the said Motilal together with his wife and chil dren filed Civil Suit No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.1989 of the Bombay High Court in C.R.A. NO.
The suit was for the dissolution of partnership, rendi tion of accounts and ancillary reliefs.
3 Puranmal should be discharged from the suit apparently because he had numberinterest in the suit.
Thereafter, a second appeal No.
It may be mentioned that full companypliance having been made by the plaintiff on 5.3.
2 firm, an application was made by the plaintiff for companyrection of that misdescription.
2 made initially in the plaint which is evi dent from the fact that defendant No.
I Ratanlal who filed the separate written statement in the suit on behalf of defendant No.
293 of 1963 was also filed by these de fendants in the High Court which too was dismissed on 2.12.1972.
The final decree dated 16.11.1959 based on the companypromise which was fully satisfied become final inasmuch as the defendants did number challenge the same by a further appeal to this Court.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
1956, the receiver gave possession of the Talkies to the plaintiff on 5.3.
1 and 2 was filed in the Trial Court.
2 and one Puranmal as defendant No.
3, Puranmal under the sale deed executed in their favour.
Thereafter, Civil Suit No.
1 and 2 within the specified period, the partnership would be deemed to be dissolved and that defendant Nos.
1 and 2 filed an appeal against the final decree dated 16.11.1959 in the Court of the Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur which was A. No.
1699 of 1980 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, was filed by respond ent Ratanlal against the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the aforesaid Motilal assailing the above companysent decree after taking the entire benefit thereunder.
19A of 1955 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, is a nullity that the partnership under the partnership deed dated 31.12.1953 between the said Ratanlal and Motilal companytinues to subsist that Ratanlal is entitled to posses sion of the said Goyal Talkies and the other ancillary reliefs.
Mrs. Ranjana Bobde and C.K. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was also agreed that on payment of this amount by the plaintiff to defendant Nos.
1956 according to the companypromise since the Only thing remaining to be done thereafter was to refund to the plaintiff the amount of Rs.5,470 paid in excess by plaintiff to defendant Nos.
P. Salve, and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Respondent.
2 firm were recorded accepting the companypromise.
The appellants companytend mat the Suit is number maintainable even on the plaint averments.
1 and 2 gave up all their rights including the interest acquired by them from defendant No.
1, the firm M s. Damdoolal and Bros. as defendant No.
The appellants are the legal representatives of Motilal who purchased the disputed property, namely, Goyal Talkies at Kamptee in the year 1946.
The said Motilal entered into a partnership on 31.12.1953 with respondent Ratanlal repre senting the joint family firm M,s. Ratanlal Damdoolal and Bros. for the purpose of running the cinema business in Goyal Talkies.
2 also companyrectly described defendant No.
It was agreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to possession of the talkies immediately on payment of the amount due to defendant Nos.
The plaintiff paid this sum of Rs.15,700 on 5.3.1956 well within the specified period the receiver rendered accounts on 19.3.1956 and an application for companyrection was made on 3.4.1956.
The short question involved is the maintainability of the suit which gives rise to this appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. Special Leave granted.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
2 as Ratanlal Damdoolal and Bros. This suit was companypromised between the parties and a companypromise petition dated February 20, 1956 signed by the plaintiff, Motilal, Ratanlal for himself as defendant No.
The petitioners then preferred a Civil Revision in the High Court which has been dismissed by the Order dated 10.8.1989.
The Trial Court held the suit to be maintainable and the High Court has dismissed the appellants revision affirming that view.
413 of 1962 decided on 27.12.
2 firm, and the companynsel for defendant Nos.
1 and 2 were directed to refund to the plaintiff the amount of Rs.5,470 which was the excess amount paid by the plaintiff to them.
However, the par ties were number misled in any manner by the misdescription of defendant No.
This companypromise was recorded by the Court on 5.3.1956 after the statements of defendant No.1 Ratanlal and the companynsel for defendant No.
On discovery of the misdescription of defendant No.
1043 of 1990.
1 and 2.
1 and 2.
1 and 2.
19A of 1955 on 4.8.1955 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Nagput, against respondent Ratanlal as defendant No.
According to the terms of the companypromise, plaintiff was to pay to defendant Nos.
521 of 1985.
1 and also on behalf of defendant No.
1 and 2.
A. Bobde, S.D. Mudaliar.
The reliefs claimed in this suit are for a declaration that the aforesaid final decree dated 16.11.
2 firm to be companyrectly described as M s. Ratanlal Damdoolal and Bros. instead of M s. Damdoolal and Bros. It appears that the companyrection even though permitted was number actually incorporated in the plaint.
1 and 2 a sum of Rs.15,700 in full satisfaction of their claim subject to final accounting, which included the sum of Rs.2,600 paid to Puranmal by defendant Nos.
