BUDH PRAKASH RASTOGI Vs. SANTOSH PAL DUBLISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, who had filed a suit for dissolution of the firm known as 'Rajiv Prakashan', and for accounting against the defendant-respondent-Santosh Pal Dublish. Earlier to the formation of the partnership firm between the plaintiff and defendant, another firm with the same name and style, namely, 'Rajiv Prakashan', which stood dissolved on 31-3-1966, in which apart from the plaintiff and defendant, S/Sri Budh Prakash Rastogi, and Sushil Kumar Rastogi were also partners. The new firm was created on 1-4-1968 with only plaintiff and the defendant as partners. Plaintiff filed suit No. 933 of 1969 praying for the relief of dissolution of the firm and for the accounting from Apr., 1966 to Nov., 1969. The suit was filed on 15-11-1969. After the suit was filed by the plaintiff, a Commission was issued by the Court ex parte. The commission visited the shops of the firm on 16-11-1969 for inspection. It appears that after the visit of the Commission at the firm's shops, certain developments took place, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff somewhere either on 20th or 21st Nov., 1969. Before that, with the consent of the parties, the firm was dissolved and dispute between the partners was amicably settled on the intervention of their friends and relatives.

(2.) After dissolution of the firm, the defendant floated a proprietorship firm in the same name and style of 'Rajiv Prakashan' with which the plaintiff had no concern. He also settled the old accounts of the firm by meeting the liabilities of the firm and paying outstanding dues of the creditors of the firm. It was in 1970 that the present suit, being suit No. 62 of 1970 was filed by the plaintiff for exactly the same relief, namely, for dissolution of the firm which had been formed on 1-4-1966 and stood dissolved on 16-11-1969, and for accounting of the firms' finances.

(3.) So far as the relief for dissolution of the firm is concerned, both the Courts have dismissed the suit. However, the trial Court decreed the suit for accounting holding that the accounts between the partners had not been settled and a decree was accordingly passed for it. On appeal, the first appellate Court, modified the decree and decreed the suit for accounting with effect from 1-4-1969 to 15-11-1969. It may also be pointed out here that the defendant had also filed a cross-objection in the first appellate Court. In his cross-objection, the defendant had taken exception to the decree passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court dismissed plaintiff's appeal and partly allowed defendant's cross-objection holding that the plaintiff was entitled for taking the accounting of the firm from 1-4-1969 to 15-11-1969 till before the date of the dissolution of the firm on 16-11-1969. This Second Appeal has now been filed by the plaintiff with the contention that since the accounts have not been given by the defendant for the entire period during which the firm was in existence, as such, he is entitled to get the accounts of the firm from 1-4-1966 to 27-3-1970. The appellant's stand was that the firm did not dissolve on 16-11-1969, or at any time thereafter.