IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29946 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ OS.1418/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.R.BABU, AGED 50, S/O.KANAKASSERI RAGHAVAN, "ASWATHI", NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KANDESWARAM, MANAVALASSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. K.R.VIJAYAN, S/O.KANAKASSERI RAGHAVAN, "VINODAN", MAHATMA LANE, VELIYANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. SMITHA, W/O.KANAKASSERI SHAJAN, KOSSERI, GARDEN CITY, KUTTANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. RAHUL (MINOR), S/O.LATE SHAJAN, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN SMITHA, W/O.KANAKASSERI SHAJAN, KOSSERI, GARDEN CITY, KUTTANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29946 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and may be pleased to quash the same. ii) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.1418 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. Suit is one for injunction, and the first respondent, the plaintiff. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint in the suit. The case of the plaintiff, as seen from Ext.P1 is that he is a partner of a firm where the W.P.(C).No.29946 OF 2009 Page numbers first respondent in the O.P is the other partner. As disputes have arisen between them in conducting the business of the firm, dissolution of the firm is essential and steps are being taken up thereof, and so much so, the petitioner/defendant must be prevented from committing waste or creating any document in respect of the plaint property. Petitioner/defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. In view of the pendency of the proceedings relating to an interlocutory application for injunction moved in the suit, the orders of which passed by the trial court were challenged before the Sub Court and also this court, it appears, no effective steps for trial were continued in the suit. After the disposal of that interlocutory application for injunction, a stranger moved an application for getting himself impleaded as an additional defendant contending that he too is a partner of the firm along with the W.P.(C).No.29946 OF 2009 Page numbers plaintiff and the defendant. Though the petitioner/defendant filed objections against the impleadment of that person, court below allowed such impleadment vide Ext.P7 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Having regard to the allegations raised in Ext.P1, copy of the plaint, it appears, the court below should have examined the question, whether a suit by a partner against another partner, without seeking for dissolution and account of the firm, in the absence W.P.(C).No.29946 OF 2009 Page numbers of special grounds, is maintainable with reference to the Indian Partnership Act 1932. The court below has not considered the maintainability of the suit. I direct the court below to examine whether the suit is maintainable as a preliminary issue, after casting of issues, relegating the other issues raised for consideration, later depending on the finding on maintainability. In that view of the matter, I need not go into the merits of Ext.P7 order by which the court has allowed impleadment of the second respondent as an additional defendant in the suit. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv