- (1.) BOTH the plaintiff Dliari Lal and the defendant Amolak Ram have filed appeals against a final decree in a suit for rendition of accounts passed in the plaintiff's favour for Rs. 6. 171/14/ -. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners in a firm which started in 1943 and carried on business as commission agents, dealers in foodgrains and other commodities at Lahore cantonment under the name of Messrs. Dhari Lal Amolak Ram and that all the capital of this firm was furnished by Dhari Lal, who is a resident of Patti and who is interested in a number of firms, on the condition that Amolak Ram was to run the business at Lahore Cantonment and that profits or losses were to be shared between the parties half arid half, Dhari Lal being entitled to interest at 6 per cent, per annum on the capital invested by him. This business was still being carried on when it was rudely interrupted by the partition in August 1947.
(2.) BEFORE the Commissioner who was appointed to go into the accounts after the preliminary decree had been passed by the consent of the parties only the accounts of the firm up to the 31st of March 1947 were available. These were in possession of the plaintiff Dhari Lal and were produced by him before the commissioner. The accounts for the unfinished year commencing from the 1st of april 1947 were alleged by Dhari Lal to be in possession of the defendant Amolak ram but the latter alleged that they were no longer in his possession as he had been unable to bring them with him when he fled to India in a convoy a short time after the partition,
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the defendant against the appeal filed by the plaintiff which has been valued for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 2600. 00 although it is clear from grounds 4, 5 and 6 in the memorandum of appeal that the appellant is claiming a sum of about Rs. 10,600. 00. Three specific items are mentioned in the grounds of appeal -- Rs. 16,026. 00, Rs. 2,916/8/6 and Rs. 2,296/l/- and even on the basis of crediting the plaintiff with the half of these amounts the above figure would be arrived at. It is contended that since the court-fee has only been paid at Rs. 2,600. 00 the plaintiff-appellant is con-fined to claiming that additional amount in the appeal, which of course would debar him from raising the major item of Rs. 16,026. 00 which has been found to be the value of the goods of the firm lost in Lahore Cantonment on account of the partition.;