IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4227 OF 2010 Between: Repaka Lakshmana Rao …Petitioner A n d Addepalli Viswanadham and 8 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4227 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08-06-2010 in F.D.I.A.No.384 of 1985 in O.S.No.49 of 1978 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein under Order XX Rule 15 read with Section 151 CPC to appoint a Commissioner to take an account of the profits and losses of the firm “Addepalli Satyanarayana Murthy, Nageswara Rao & Co.,” and to carry out the other directions of the Court in the preliminary decree dated 10-12-1984, was ordered accepting the calculation memo filed by the petitioner and directing him to pay requisite stamps in accordance with final decree. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the first respondent, though served with notices. R-2 to R-9 are stated to be not necessary parties to the present civil revision petition. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. A preliminary decree was passed on 10-12-1984 declaring that the partnership between the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 7 and Addepalli Satyanarayana Murthy shall stand dissolved as from 04-07-1975. It was further directed that a Commissioner be appointed for rendition of accounts. Subsequently, a Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.384 of 1985 filed under Order XX Rule 15 CPC to take account of the profits and loses of the firm and to carry out other directions contained in the preliminary decree and he filed a report on 13-10-1997 wherein the statement of particulars of account found due between the firm and the various partners and the parties thereto was enclosed. The respondent herein filed a calculation memo in pursuance of the orders dated 31-10- 1997 in I.A.No.384 of 1985 in O.S.No.49 of 1978 stating that a total sum of Rs.1,10,734.81 Ps is due by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein filed objections to the said calculation memo stating that subsequent to filing of the report by the Commissioner, he paid a sum of Rs.20,373/- towards the full satisfaction of the debt due under a decree in favour of a third party Ram Prasad who filed E.P.No.50 of 1990, in addition to a sum of Rs.12,100/- paid by him earlier in the same EP and thus he made a total payment of Rs.32,473/- though he is liable to pay only Rs.4,221.49 Ps towards his 13 paise share and thus he has paid an excess amount of Rs.28,251.51 Ps which is to be given credit to in his favour. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the failure to deduct the said amount of Rs.28,251.51 Ps from the amount shown towards his liability in the calculation memo filed by the respondent is improper. The petitioner further contended that filing the calculation memo only showing the liability of the petitioner and not fixing the liability of other partners is improper and contrary to the provisions of Section 48-B of the Partnership Act. 4. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the objections raised by the petitioner herein and directed the respondent herein to file requisite stamps for engrossing the final decree, accepting the calculation memo filed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by D-7. 5. It is not disputed that the final decree passed on 31- 10-1997 in I.A.No.384 of 1985 in O.S.No.49 of 1978 has become final in view of the dismissal of C.R.P.No.1131 of 1998 on 18-07-2003 by this Court and also dismissal of I.A.No.4060 of 2004 in unnumbered A.S refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the Principal District Court, Eluru on 13-04-2007 and dismissal of CRP.No.2599 of 2007 by this Court on 18-01-2008 against the said orders. While passing the final decree, the trial Court has noted in the decree that steps are being taken for filing calculation memo for arriving at the amount due to the plaintiff and to file Court fee stamps for engrossing the final decree. In pursuance of the same, the plaintiff filed the impugned calculation memo for which objections were filed by the petitioner herein. 6. The impugned order passed by the trial Court does not disclose whether the amount of Rs.12,100/- paid by the petitioner herein towards E.P.No.50 of 1990 which is noted by the Commissioner also in his report and whether the amount of Rs.28,251.51 Ps which the petitioner herein claimed to have paid in excess of his share towards full satisfaction of the decree debt in E.P.No.50 of 1990 have been given credit to in favour of the petitioner and deducted from his liability and whether the calculation memo filed by the respondent herein is proper and correct in that regard. For the purpose of ascertaining the amount for which the Court fee stamp is to be filed for engrossing the final decree, it is also necessary to ascertain the liability of the other partners so that the stamp duty can be paid on the appropriate amount. The impugned order of the trial Court does not disclose as to the liability of the other partners. 7. In the circumstances, it is considered necessary to remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal so that the liabilities of all the partners are duly ascertained and the final decree passed in I.A.No.384 of 1985 becomes meaningful and effective. Both parties are, therefore, directed to file fresh calculation memos before the trial Court showing the respective liabilities of each of them in the light of the Commissioner’s report and also payments said to have been made by the petitioner subsequent to filing of the Commissioner’s report. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to both parties to file their respective objections to the calculation memos and after hearing both sides pass appropriate orders in accordance with law ascertaining the amount on which the Court fee stamps are to be filed for engrossing the final decree. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh disposal according to law. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th April, 2011 Lrkm