( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 848 OF 2009 Jagannath s/o Bankatlal Mantri APPELLANT VERSUS Smt. Prabha w/o Mukund Haastak and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. H.A. Joshi, advocate for the appellant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Deceased Mukund Hastak was a partner of registered Firm. The appellant was the acting and managing partner of the said Firm. The Firm was dealing in business of chemicals. There is no dispute about the fact that Mukund Hastak died on 29-12-1997. Unfortunately, he was involved in a vehicular accident and was injured. The Firm M/s Kedar Chemicals did not, however, settle the accounts to the extent of deceased Mukund. His widow and minor sons filed suit (Spl.C.S. No. 80/1989) for rendition of accounts and dissolution ( 2 ) of the Firm. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court also confirmed the findings. 3. Contention of the appellant was that creditors of the Firm were necessary parties and the suit for rendition of accounts could not be proceeded with unless all the creditors and other necessary parties were joined. It is also contended by learned counsel that the suit filed through Power of Attorney was not maintainable and that the Power of Attorney could not have deposed in support of suit claim. It is argued that the Power of Attorney can not act under Order-III Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, both the Courts committed patent error while accepting the version of said Power of Attorney on behalf of the plaintiffs. I do not agree. This is not a case in which the suit was purely based on the information available only with the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that deceased Mukund Hastak was partner of the Firm. Obviously, it is for the appellant to show as to why rendition of the accounts could be legally denied. The burden is shifted on the appellant to establish that ( 3 ) deceased Mukund Hastak was not entitled to any kind of share in the properties and could not have demanded the accounts. It is of common knowledge that in case of registered Firm, each partner has same responsibilities and liabilities towards the Firm and towards the creditors. The Commissioner, who may be appointed for settlement of the accounts, will take into account the loss and profits including the claims of creditors. In such a case, it cannot be said that the creditors are the necessary parties to the suit. Nor, details about names of creditors have been given in the written statement. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the plea regarding non- joinder is without any merit and was taken just to give go-bye to the reasonable and just demand of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and as such, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa848-09 ( 4 )