Bhaskar Bhattacharya,J. - (1.) This revisional application is at the instance of defendants in a suit for account and is directed against order dated September 15, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in Misc. Appeal No.25 of 1999 thereby affirming Order No.9 dated February 11, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Midnapore in O.S. No. 108 of 1998.
(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party is the brother's wife of the present petitioners/defendants. The opposite party filed a suit being O.S. No. 108 of 1998 thereby praying for the following reliefs :- "(a) For a decree directing the defendants to render a faithful and true account regarding the joint truck business of the plaintiff and the defendants during the period from the middle part of 1984 upto date. (b) For decree of payment to the plaintiff of a sum as may be found due on accounting. (c) For direction to be made to the plaintiff for payment of the Court fees after accounting upon the share of the plaintiff. (d) For appointment of receiver for management of the business and for collection of the money due to the said business during the pendency of the suit. (e) For all costs of the suit and other equitable reliefs etc."
(3.) The case made out by the opposite party was that as per verbal agreement among the parties they had entered into a transport business for which they jointly purchased the truck in question by making equal contribution and the names of the parties were mutated in the R.C. Book. It was further alleged that at the time of purchase of the truck it was orally agreed among the parties that the truck would ply on the road on hire basis under direct supervision and management of petitioner No.1 with the assistance of Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioners would keep accounts of income and expenditure of the truck hiring business and there would be accounting of the income and expenditure of the business by the end of December in each year and after accounting, the profit of the business would be distributed among the plaintiff and the defendants in equal share. The opposite party complained that the Petitioners did not pay a furthing to the opposite party towards profit of the said joint business inspite of repeated request. Hence the suit.;