- (1.) Notice of motion was issued to the respondents on 1st September 2006 and the further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed by this Court. The respondents were ordered to be served through dasti process on payment of usual charges. The respondents could not be served of the summons and have remained unserved and therefore, unrepresented. Vide order dated 23rd May 2008, this Court while considering the background of the case allowed the application for substituted service on the respondents. Service through publication was ordered in two newspapers with a wide circulation in the area where the respondents were expected to ordinarily reside. The petitioners and the respondents were initially partners of a firm and carried on business for gain. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts.
(2.) Mr. Ahuja appearing for the petitioners submits that he has placed documentary proof on record with the written statement filed before the trial Court to show that the partnership deed stood dissolved on 6th November 1996 prior to the institution of the suit.
(3.) Publication was effected as ordered and the matter was admitted on 16th September 2008 with the interim order to continue during the pendency of the petition. This Court on 16th September 2010, also proceeded ex parte respondents as neither they appeared nor anyone on their behalf entered appearance to defend the case. Thereafter, the matter has lingered on. The trial Court record was requisitioned and has been received.;