ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE SHORT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 69 SUB-SECTION (3) OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ACT"). IN THE PLAINT, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED A DECREE FOR ACCOUNTING OF THE APPELLANTS PROFITS AND FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM OF WHICH RESPONDENTS 1-4 ARE ALSO PARTNERS. THE FIRST PRAYER OF THE F PLAINT ALSO PROVIDES FOR A TENTATIVE VALUATION OF THE RELIEF CLAIMED AND THAT "PROCESS COURT FEE SHALL BE PAID ON THE PLAINTIFFS SHARE OF PROFITS AFTER FINAL ACCOUNTING IS DONE BETWEEN THE PARTIES". IN ADDITION TO THIS THERE WAS A SECOND PRAYER FOR PAYMENT OF PROFITS PLUS INVESTMENT AND FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS 3 TO 6 WHO ARE RESPONDENTS 1-5 BEFORE THIS COURT FROM RECEIVING ANY PAYMENT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE APPELLANT.

3. THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY RESPONDENTS 1-5 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE SUIT WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WAS ALLOWED FOR REASONS WHICH ARE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WHO PARTIALLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE FIRST PRAYER W