L.N. Mittal, J.
CM No. 9281-C of 2010
1. This is application by Appellant-Amrik Singh for condonation of delay of 1080 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that the
applicant-Appellant had been attending the case before the Courts below, but he requested the Clerk of the counsel in the lower Courts to inform
him as and when the case was decided because the applicant-Appellant was suffering from heart disease and might not be able to attend the Court
proceedings, but Clerk of the counsel did not inform the applicant-Appellant. After waiting for long time, the applicant-Appellant contacted his
counsel in the lower Courts and learnt of the decision dated 11.06.2007 of the lower appellate Court.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant-Appellant and perused the case file.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant-Appellant reiterated the stand taken by the applicant-Appellant in the application. However, on careful
consideration thereof, I find no ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of almost three years in filing the appeal. Vague,
general and specious averments that applicant Appellant was suffering from heart disease and could not attend the Court and Clerk of the counsel
did not inform him about the decision of the first appeal cannot be said to be a ground to condone long delay almost three years. If such long delay
is condoned on such vague, general and specious ground, then the law of limitation would be completely defeated. The very purpose of prescribing
limitation period would be frustrated. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, even if taken at face value, I find no ground much less
sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of almost three years for filing the instant second appeal. It may be added that even if the applicant-
Appellant was unwell, he could have contacted his counsel telephonically. His family members also could contact the counsel or could attend the
Court proceedings. The applicant Appellant could not have waited for more than three years since after the decision of the first appeal to contact
his counsel to know the fate of the appeal. No document regarding alleged ailment of the applicant-Appellant has either been produced.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant application. The same is hereby dismissed.
CM No. 9282-C of 2010
5. Allowed as prayed for.
Main Appeal.
6. Since application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed, the appeal is liable to dismissal as time barred. However, even
on merits, the Appellant cannot succeed.
7. This is second appeal by Amrik Singh-Plaintiff, having failed in both the Courts below.
8. Case of the Plaintiff-Appellant is that he along with Defendant No. 4/Respondent No. 1 constituted a partnership firm.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (functionaries of National Fertilizer Limited-NFL) allocated work to the partnership firm which was executed by the firm.
However, Defendant No. 4 alone wanted to take away the amount of the said work. The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from disbursing the said amount of the firm to Defendant No. 4 and from operating bank accounts of the firm and from
receiving payment etc. due to the firm and from alienating the property of the firm. Alternative relief of mandatory injunction was also sought if
Defendant No. 4 succeeded in getting payments from Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
9. The suit was contested by the Defendants.
10. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.2006 dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit.
First appeal preferred by the Plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar vide judgment and decree dated
11.06.2007. Feeling aggrieved, Plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.
11. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file.
12. At the outset, it has to be noticed that suit for injunction alone is not maintainable. The Plaintiff in the garb of injunction wanted recovery of the
amount allegedly due from Defendants No. 1 to 3 to the alleged firm. However, the Plaintiff did not seek relief of recovery of the said amount.
Mere permanent injunction as sought for by the Plaintiff would not be sufficient because in that event, the amount would keep lying with Defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 and neither Plaintiff nor Defendant No. 4 would be entitled to receive the amount. On the contrary, the suit is barred by Section 41(h)
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because the Plaintiff had efficacious remedy to seek relief of the recovery of the due amount or to seek dissolution
of the alleged partnership firm and rendition of accounts thereof and recovery of the due amount. However, the Plaintiff did not seek any such relief
and sought permanent injunction only. Suit for permanent injunction alone is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case even if
plaint averments are taken at face value.
13. In addition to the aforesaid, the alleged partnership firm constituted by Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4 was admittedly unregistered.
Consequently, the suit has been rightly held to be barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. There is no infirmity, illegality or
perversity in the aforesaid finding of the Courts below. Even if alleged partnership firm was constituted by Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4, the same
being unregistered, the Plaintiff cannot file suit on the basis of such unregistered partnership in view of mandatory provision of Section 69 of the
Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for
adjudication in the instant second appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.