S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.)AMENDMENT of the written statement, is it competent after the passing of the preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts? Herein lies the controversy raised.
(2.)WHAT happened here was that after the passing of the preliminary decree on May 8, 1979, the Court ordered the appointment of a Receiver. This was done on June 6, 1980 on the application of the decree -holder Mohan Lal. This order was challenged in appeal by the Defendant Baldev Raj. Baldev Raj died during the pendency of this appeal. After his legal representatives had been impleaded, a compromise is said to have been arrived at between the parties in terms of which, the shop in dispute came to Sonu, the minor son of Baldev Raj. There is on record, a copy of the order of District Judge, Jalandhar of September 4, 1980, the operative part of which reads as under:
Mohan Lal Respondent has made a statement that he bat surrendered his share in the shop in dispute in favour of Sonu, the minor son of Baldev Raj, Appellant since deceased while Prem Lata on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor children has also made statement praying for the withdrawal of the appeal on the basis of the said compromise.

The appeal was on this account allowed to be withdrawn.

The Defendants then sought amendment of the written statement seeking thereby to plead the compromise referred to above. The trial Court disallowed it on the wholly untenable premises that the preliminary decree had become final and thus operated as res -Judicata between the parties and therefore, no amendment could be allowed which would effect the basis of the preliminary decree or rights of the Plaintiff Mohan Lal, thereunder.

(3.)IT is now well settled that the Court is indeed competent to take note of events subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree effecting the rights and position of the parties to the property in suit and the Court taking into account the altered situation can, if necessary, pass a further preliminary decree. In R. Subramania Iyer and Ors. v. Thangammal : A.I.R. 1965 Mad. 305, a compromise was said to have been arrived at between the parties after the passing of the preliminary decree. It was held that the Court could take this compromise into consideration and pass preliminary decree In this behalf, it was observed "the Court is competent to take into account the matters set out in the compromise, if the compromise is found to be genuine and binding on the parties and the Court is entitled to embody it in a set of fresh directions for the purpose of passing a final decree, and the directions so issued should be construed as not an amendment to the preliminary decree, already passed, but rather as a fresh preliminary decree, which its open to the Court, dealing with a partition suit to pass at any time till the stage of passing the final decree is over." As the compromise had been questioned on the grounds of deceit and misrepresentation, the trial Court was directed to deal with the matter relating to the validity of the compromise and the necessity to pass a revised preliminary decree in accordance therewith, if its validity was established.