IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3708 of 2007 Date of Decision : July 30, 2009 M/s Sadhu Ram Roshan Lal and another ....Appellants Versus Ram Ji Dass and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for dissolution of partnership firm M/s Sadhu Ram Roshan Lal, Cloth Merchants, Jaitu, and for rendition of accounts and for passing a decree for the amount, which may be found due and recoverable by him against the defendants, filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1, was dismissed with costs by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, on August 01, 2005, which judgment and decree was challenged by the plaintiff by filing an appeal and the appeal was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, on September 17, 2007. Aggrieved of the same, two of the three defendants have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under issues No 1, 2 and 4 as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to seek the relief of dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of RSA No. 3708 of 2007 -2- accounts for the reason that he had withdrawn from the partnership firm, learned trial Court returned the finding against the plaintiff. However, learned lower Appellate Court, while deciding the appeal filed by the plaintiff held that the parties to the suit started partnership firm, i.e., defendant No.1 vide partnership deed w.e.f. 1.4.1992 and the plaintiff continued to be a partner in the said firm till 31.3.1994. From 1.4.1994 a new firm with Roshan Lal and Sadhu Ram-defendants as partners came into existence. The aforementioned conclusions were mentioned in para 17 of the impugned judgment passed by lower Appellate Court. However, in para 18 of the impugned judgment, it was held that vide deed Ex.D1 dated 16.1.1994, the parties to the suit did not dissolve the firm in question and the document Ex.D1 was merely a partition document, which did not refer to any past settlement between the parties. It was qua the property of the parties situated at Bathinda and at other places and was not qua the dissolution of the partnership firm, i.e, defendant No.1. Apparently, there is a contradiction between the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court in paras 17 and 18. On the one hand, learned lower Appellate Court held that defendant No.1-partnership firm came into effect w.e.f. 1.4.1992 of which the plaintiff was also a partner and remained so till 31.3.1994 and from 1.4.1994 a new firm with defendants No.2 and 3 as its partners came into existence, whereas this finding is contradicted in para 18 of its judgment holding that vide deed Ex.D1 dated 16.1.1994, the parties to the suit did not dissolve the firm in question and it was only qua the property of the parties situated at Bathinda and at other places and not qua the dissolution of the partnership firm, i.e., defendant No.1. RSA No. 3708 of 2007 -3- Learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No.1, who is the only contesting party, fairly concedes that the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court in para 17 of its judgment stands contradicted by the conclusion arrived at in para 18 of the same judgment. Keeping in view the aforementioned circumstances, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh. As the matter is an old one, the lower Appellate Court is directed to decide it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Parties, through their counsel, shall appear before the lower Appellate Court on August 24, 2009. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 30, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1