HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a second appeal by a plaintiff, which arises out of a suit for rendition of accounts. The Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, granted the plaintiff a preliminary decree under Order 20, Rule 15. The defendants preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge, who set aside the decision of the Sub Judge and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and for misjoinder. Thereupon, the plaintiff came up in second appeal to this Court. My learned predecessor allowed that appeal and remanded the case to the lower appellate Court for redecision with certain directions. The District Judge has re heard the matter and once again non suited the plaintiff. Hence the present second appeal.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant argued that the issues framed by the District Judge, after remand, were incomplete and in the case of issues 5 to 7, the onus has been wrongly placed on the plaintiff. The findings arrived at by the District Judge have also been strenuously assailed. I was, therefore, requested to reverse the decision of the District Judge and decree the suit.
The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that on 22 Har, 2002 B., a partnership was created between Shiv Singh, plaintiff, Ramji Dass, Sada Ram, Bhagat Ram, Gopalu Ram and Bal Mukand. Bal Mukand and Gopalu Ram retired from the partnership after 15 or 20 days with the consent of the remaining partners. The remaining partners agreed that they would share the gains as well as the losses accruing from the partnership. On the 11th of Bhadun, 2002, a supplementary partnership deed was executed between the remaining partners. The business of the partnership consisted in the manufacture and sale of Katha, which work was completed by Jeth, 2003. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants have not paid him his share of the profits. Since, according to him, the account books were in the custody of the defendants, he sought a decree for rendition of accounts.
(3.) THE defendants' case was that the agreement of 22 4 2002 was superseded by another agreement dated llth Bhadun 2002 and therefore, no suit lay on the basis of the original agreement.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.