RSA No. 2432 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2432 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2011 Nagesh Kumar and others .....Appellants Versus Kapoor Chand .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff as well as the defendants constituted a partnership firm and a deed of partnership was executed between the parties on 2.6.1986. The name of the firm was M/s Shri.Ganesh Trading Company Commission Agents, Ismailabad. The plaintiff had shares to the extent of 35% in the firm,whereas, defendant no.1 had shares to the extent of 10% and defendant No.2 had shares to the extent of 35% in the firm. Defendant No.3 had shares to the extent of 20% in the RSA No. 2432 of 2009 (O&M) 2 partnership firm. The accounts book of the firm were with the defendants. Defendants had now stopped the plaintiff from taking active part in the partnership business and were not allowing him to inspect the accounts books. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit was not maintainable under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Plaintiff had filed suit titled `Kapur Chand vs. Nagesh Kumar” and the said suit was still pending. Nagesh Kumar being partner of the firm was always ready to use the property on behalf of the firm and raise construction. Defendants were unable to complete construction work in view of the stay order granted in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The firm had worked upto 31.3.1998 and a balance sheet had been prepared and submitted with the income tax Office. As per report for the year 2000-2001, the plaintiff had to pay ` 969.52 and in addition to that he had to contribute towards construction as per his share. Plaintiff had never been restrained from running the partnership business and had inspected the accounts books many a times. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiff and the defendants constituted a partnership firm as alleged?OPP 2.If issue no.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of account as alleged?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file and RSA No. 2432 of 2009 (O&M) 3 maintain the present suit?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit?OPD 5.Whether plaint has not been verified according to laws of pleading, if so its effects?OPD 6.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the suit?OPD 7.Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court, if so its effect?OPD 8,Whether suit is bad for non compliance of Section 69 of Indian partnership firm Act?OPD 9.Whether the suit is bad for non compliance of order 7 rule 1 CPC?OPD 10.Whether no proper court fees has been affixed on the plaint, if so its effect?OPD 11.Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD 12.Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC?OPD 13.Relief." The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 15.4.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 9.3.2009 by the Additional District Judge. Consequently, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff declaring deemed dissolution of the partnership firm on the date of the filing of RSA No. 2432 of 2009 (O&M) 4 the suit. It was further ordered that either party may seek passing of final decree for rendition of accounts and other acts to be done. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Section 69 of the Act reads as under:- “69.Effect of non-registration.-(1)No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. (2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. (3) The provisions of sub-section(1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect,- (a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm,or (b)the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to realise the property of an RSA No. 2432 of 2009 (O&M) 5 insolvent partner (4) This section shall not apply,- (a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in [the territories to which this Act extends], or whose places of business in [the said territories], are situated in areas to which, by notification under [section 56], this Chapter does not apply, or (b)to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value, which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, or outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidentall to or arising from any such suit or claim.” Thus, as per the said provision, the plaintiff could file the suit for dissolution of the firm and for rendition of accounts. Admittedly, plaintiff and defendant No.2 had 35% shares each in the firm,whereas, defendant No.1 had 10% shares and defendant No.3 had 20% share in the firm. Order 20 rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “Where a suit is for the dissolution of a partnership, or the taking of partnership accounts, the Court, before passing a final decree, may pass a preliminary decree declaring the proportionate shares of the parties, fixing the day on which the partnership shall stand dissolved or be deemed to have RSA No. 2432 of 2009 (O&M) 6 been dissolved, and directing such accounts to be taken, and other acts to be done,as it thinks fit.” Thus, as per the above provisions in a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm or accounts, the Court may pass a preliminary decree before passing the final decree. In these circumstances, learned First Appellate Court has rightly passed the preliminary decree declaring deemed dissolution of the partnership firm from the date of filing of the suit. On dissolution, the parties being partners are liable to render accounts. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 12, 2011 arya