SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 613

Supreme Court Of India
RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.
K. GOPALAN NAIR - Appellant
Versus
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2580 of 2005,
Decided on April 11, 2005

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rules 24, 25, 23, 23-A and 26 - A suit was filed by the appellant claiming that he had 50 per cent share in the firm - He had agreed that he would retire from the firm upon receipt of Rs. 9,95,205/- The Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 6,85,750/- and also accepted the claim that the appellant had 50 per cent share in the partnership firm- The High Court decided the appeal partly in favour of the respondents and remanded the matter for consideration of two issues -Not proper- Once the trial had been concluded, there was no question of the defendants being given a second opportunity - The High Court should have decided the matter on the basis of the material on record -Order of the High Court set aside- Matter remitted to the High Court to decide it afresh on the basis of the material on record.[Para 4 ]

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. A suit was filed by the appellant claiming that he had 50 per cent share in the firm of which the respondents were partners. According to the b appellant, he had agreed that he would retire from the firm upon receipt of Rs 9,95,205. He claims that only Rs 1,00,000 was paid to him and he filed a suit for the balance. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs 6,85,750 and also accepted the claim that the appellant had 50 per cent share in the partnership firm. The High Court decided the appeal partly in favour of the respondents and remanded the matter for consideration of two issues to be redecided by the trial court. The grievance of the appellant is that the High Court should have decided the matter on the evidence on record without remitting the matter back to the trial court for admission of fresh evidence.

3. For appreciating the submission, the conclusion of the High Court as expressed in para 12 of the impugned judgment is set out below:

"1. It is declared that the partnership of which the plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 were partners was dissolved by Ext. B-2.

2. Ext. B-7 is accepted in evidence.

3. The question whether Rs 5 lakhs and odd was paid by the first defendant to the plaintiff is to be proved by the defendants by appropriate evidence.

4. The question whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation is to be considered by the court below."

4. Once the trial had been concluded, there was no question of the defendants being given a second opportunity to prove their case before the trial court. The High Court should have decided the matter on the basis of the material on record not only as regards the third conclusion but also with t regard to the issue of limitation.

5. In view of the above, third and fourth conclusions of the impugned judgment are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court to decide it afresh on the basis of material on record. We make it clear that this order should be read as an affirmation of conclusions 1 and 2.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top