- (1.) THE pending substitution application was allowed on 19.4.2011. Let the heirs be substituted and brought on record within a week.
(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are, that on 29.7.1953 a partnership firm was registered and was carrying on business. A dispute arose between the partners in the year 2003. Whereas the Plaintiff, in Suit No. 962 of 2003 claimed relief of injunction against the Defendants from interfering in the business, and alleged that some of the partners had retired but that the firm and business is still continuing, the Defendants in a separate suit No. 1343 of 2003 claimed that the firm was dissolved and thus a decree for dissolution of partnership and rendition of account, be passed. Earlier an application was filed by the Plaintiff in Suit No. 1343 of 2003 against the appointment of receiver. The application was rejected on 18.4.2009, on which a First Appeal From Order No. 1739 of 2009 Purshottam Das Gupta and Ors. v. Shri Manish Kumar Misra and Ors. was filed. The appeal was disposed of on 26.5.2009, with the findings: "Admittedly, the firm has not been made party irrespective of the factum whether the same is registered or not at least for the purpose of dissolution of the firm and rendition of account as per Section 69(3)(a) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. However, the Appellant himself has contended before this Court that the firm might have been dissolved w.e.f. 18th August, 2003, therefore, rendition of account has not been settled. The Court expedited the suit that it should be disposed of within three months."
(3.) BOTH the suits have been dismissed on the ground that the firm is not registered and thus the partner is not entitled to file a suit against each other under Section 69(1) of the Act giving rise to these First Appeals.;