AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.) CM No. 5397-C of 2016 1. Prayer in this application is for permission to lead additional evidence in the form of a complaint and the site plan.
(2.) At the time of hearing of the application, after making some submissions, the counsel for the applicants-appellants does not press the application and, therefore, the same stands dismissed. CM No. 5396-C of 2016 1. Prayer in this application is for preponement of the hearing of the appeal in the light of the fact that the execution proceedings are pending before the Court for 24.05.2016. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
(3.) The hearing of the main appeal is preponed from 14.07.2016 and the same is taken on board for consideration. RSA No. 2522 of 2015 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby the suit filed by respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 5,12,683/- which is arrears of rent along with 12% interest, has been decreed against appellant-defendant No. 1, the partnership firm as also the other two defendants, who are the active partners of the said partnership firm, appeal against which preferred by the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, on 02.02.2015. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents-plaintiffs have intentionally not impleaded all the partners to the partnership firm as parties. He further contends that even if the said assertion is not to be accepted, the liability, if any, would be of the partners as per the terms and conditions of the partnership deed dated 01.04.1992 Exhibit P-9. He, therefore, contends that the judgments and decree as passed by the Courts below cannot sustain as the liability has been imposed upon the firm as well as appellant-defendant No.2 as also respondent No. 4-defendant No. 3-Rajesh Kumar only, who was proceeded against ex parte even before the trial Court and had preferred not to file an appeal against judgment and decree. He, thus, contends that the impugned judgments and decree be set aside and the suit of the respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs be dismissed. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments.;