SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against an order refusing to reject a plaint or, to be more appropriate, refusing to revoke the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) The case made out in the plaint is that the first respondent plaintiff was the partner of the appellant firm along with the second, third and fourth respondents herein. On or about July 12, 2017, the first respondent herein severed his ties with the firm upon all the partners executing a document and the other partners promising to discharge the dues of the first respondent, whether from the accounts of the partnership firm or from their personal accounts. The relevant document also provided that after September 30, 2017, the first respondent's dues would be discharged by the proforma respondent herein who has also been impleaded in the suit as a proforma defendant.
(3.) According to the appellant, the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was liable to be rejected on divers grounds, inter alia, that the purported memorandum of settlement of July 12, 2017 was executed beyond the territorial limits of this Court and the same would be evident from the copy of the relevant document appended to the plaint. At any rate, the appellant submits that since the entire cause of action of the first respondent is founded on such document, it is evident from a plain reading thereof that the first respondent accepted that after September 30, 2017, the firm and the partners of the firm were no longer to be liable to discharge the first respondent's dues; that obligation would be of the proforma respondent herein.;