RSA No.4609 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4609 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.02.2010. Vijay Kumar and another .……Appellants Versus M/s Kahlon Traders and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S. D. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Bachittar Singh, partner of respondent No.1 in person. Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal filed by defendant Nos.4 and 5, who have remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondent No.1 filed suit against appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 4 alleging that appellants and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are partners of partnership firm respondent No.2. Respondent No.2-firm purchased wheat and paddy from respondent No.1/plaintiff-firm. Both the firms are commission agents. There was outstanding liability of Rs.3,92,340.18P as principal amount due from respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. As per custom and usage of the market, interest was also payable thereon. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed suit for recovery of Rs.4,88,667.75P. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit) RSA No.4609 of 2009 -2- were proceeded ex parte. Appellants, who were arrayed as defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit, contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that they had retired from firm-respondent No.2 vide dissolution deed dated 03.05.1993 and no amount was due to respondent No.1 from respondent No.2 firm out of the suit amount on 03.05.1993, the date on which the appellants retired from respondent No.2. Averments of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 were also controverted. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.2005, decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent No.1 for recovery of Rs.3,92,340.18P with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of bill till filing of the suit and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till recovery, from all the defendants (appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 4) jointly and severally. First appeal preferred by defendant Nos.4 and 5 (appellants herein) has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos.4 and 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. On 10.12.2009, at the time of preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the appellants contended that his clients were ready and willing to amicably settled the matter with plaintiff-respondent No.1. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued to respondent No.1, on the basis of this contention. On the preceding date of hearing i.e on 23.12.2009, RSA No.4609 of 2009 -3- appellant No.1 Vijay Kumar and Bachittar Singh partner of respondent No.1 were directed to come present today. Pursuant thereto, Bachittar Singh partner of respondent No.1 has come present, but appellant No.1 has not come present. However, learned Senior counsel for the appellants contended that he had instructions on behalf of the appellants to settle the matter on appellants undertaking to pay half the decretal amount with liberty to respondent No.1 to recover the balance decreetal amount from respondent Nos.2 to 4. However, Bachittar Singh partner of respondent No.1 is not ready to settle the case on the aforesaid terms submitting that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were figure head partners and the appellants are the real partners and no recovery could be effected from respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is thus apparent that amicable settlement is not possible. Notice of motion was issued only to explore the possibility of amicable settlement and not on merits. However, even on merits, the appellants have no case. There is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below that the amount is due from all the defendants jointly and severally. The plea taken by the appellants that they had retired from the firm-respondent No.2 has been negated by both the Courts below. The appellants claimed to have served notice to respondent No.1 regarding their retirement from respondent No.2-firm, but both the Courts below have given finding of fact that no such notice is proved to have been served. In view of Section 32 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (in short, the Act), even after alleged retirement, the appellants continued to be liable for the acts of the partnership firm-respondent No.2 because admittedly public notice of their retirement from the firm was not given. RSA No.4609 of 2009 -4- Similarly, under Section 45 of the Act, if public notice of the dissolution of the firm is not given, the partners continue to be liable. Section 72 of the Act prescribes mode of giving public notice as required by Section 32 and Section 45 of the Act. However, admittedly no such public notice was given and, therefore, the appellants continued to be liable for the liability of partnership firm- respondent No.2 even after alleged retirement of the appellants from the firm-respondent No.2. Personal notice allegedly served by the appellants on respondent No.1-plaintiff has not been proved. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 02.02.2010 A. Kaundal