LUIS FILIPE MENEZES Vs. ELLIOT ALELUIA MANUEL MENEZES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the original defendants No. 4 and 5 who claim to be the erstwhile partners of the original plaintiff No. 3 firm. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 in the suit are the Banks. The facts indicate that on a request made by the original defendants No. 4 and 5, the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 Bank stopped payment to the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for direction to the Banks to permit operation of the account by the plaintiffs. It appears from the record that on such an application, an exparte order was passed by the Court on 11. 5. 07 directing the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 to allow the plaintiff No. 3 to operate the account till the application for temporary injunction was finally heard and decided on merits. It appears that 3 summons were issued to the defendants No. 4 and 5 only on 16. 5. 07 and they appeared before the trial Court on 24. 5. 07 through their Advocate. The application made by the plaintiffs is still pending. When this appeal came up before this Court on 10. 8. 07, the Advocate appearing for the original plaintiffs made a statement on behalf of his clients that he will not operate the account of the partnership firm with the original defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 till the next date. This position continued by my order dated 16. 8. 07.

(3.) IN my view, the trial Court ought not to have passed an exparte order permitting one of the partners to operate the account. The consequence of such an order could have been that the entire amount in the account could have been taken away by some of the partners of the firm. My attention is drawn to the fact that subsequently, on 28. 5. 07, the Court recorded a statement made by the Advocate for the original plaintiff No. 3 that the operation of the account would be for the purpose stated in para 21 of the plaint.