It is only when contents of a plaint are taken on their face value and Court finds that even according to averments in plaint suit is barred by limitation, that plaint can be rejected.

(L. Narasimha Reddy, J.)

These three Letters Patent Appeals are as between the same parties, with a slight change as to their ranking. L.P.A.Nos.37 and 48 of 2002 are filed against the decree, dated 19.10.2001, in C.C.C.A.No.40 of 1999 on the file of this Court, which, in turn, arose out of the decree, dated 26.10.1998, passed by the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.121 of 1997. L.P.A.No.47 of 2002 is filed against the decree, dated 19.10.2001, in C.C.C.A.No.35 of 1999, that, in turn, arose out of the decree, dated 26.10.1998, in O.S.No.67 of 1997, on the file of the same trial Court. The plaintiff in both the suits is common. While L.P.A.No.48 of 2002 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.121 of 1997, the defendants 1 and 9 therein filed L.P.A.No.37 of 2002. L.P.A.No.47 of 2002 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.67 of 1997. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in O.S.No.121 of 1997.

One Sri Satyanarayana Reddy had three sons, by name, Shiv Raj Reddy, 1st defendant, Ram Reddy (not a party to the suits), and Raghu Raj Reddy, the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 8 have brought into existence a firm, with the name “Shiv Raj Reddy & Brothers”, on 10.10.1993, mainly for the purpose of undertaking business in film production, distribution and exhibition. The firm has also acquired land and constructed a cinema hall, by name, Aradhana 70 mm at Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The share of the plaintiff and the defendants 1, 2 and 6 was said to be 14% each, that of the 5th defendant 15%, 4% each for the defendants 3 and 4, and 9% and 12% respectively of the defendants 7 and 8. It was alleged that the 6th defendant transferred his share to the 7th defendant and the share holding of the latter became 23%. Later on, the firm is said to have an arrangement with M/s. B.Arjun Reddy & Company. The business of the entire firm was said to have been merged into the larger firm, by name, Shiv Raj Reddy & Brothers and B.Arjun Reddy & Company, the 9th defendant, which is under the management of the 1st defendant.

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.754 of 1991, which has been renumbered as O.S.No.121 of 1997 for dissolution of the 9th defendant firm, for a direction to the defendants 1 to 5 to render accounts of the said firm, and for payment of his share of profits and assets. O.S.No.67 of 1997 was also filed by the same plaintiff for dissolution of the firm, by name, M/s. Shiv Raj Reddy & Brothers, and for rendition of accounts and allocation of 20% of the profits and assets therein to him. The ancillary relief of appointment of commissioner and receivers was also prayed for.

The 1st defendant filed written-statement, opposing the suit. According to him, the plaintiff was not a partner of the firm at all and that his name was included only for the purpose of accounting. It was also alleged that the plaintiff did not make any investment in the firm and he is not entitled to any relief. Certain other facts were also pleaded.

Having regard to the stand taken by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.121 of 1997, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.3 of 1996, since re-numbered as O.S.No.67 of 1997, almost for the same reliefs, but with some changes as to percentage of shares, etc. For example, in O.S.No.121 of 1997, the plaintiff claimed 14% share of the profits, whereas in O.S.No.67 of 1997, he claimed the share at 20%, duly explaining the reasons in the body of the plaint.

Both the suits were not clubbed as such, but appear to have been tried and heard together. Having regard to the fact that the parties are not common to both the suits, evidence was recorded separately. A preliminary decree was passed on 26-10-1998 in O.S.No.121 of 1997, directing that the 9th defendant-firm be dissolved and defendants 1 to 5 therein were directed to render accounts. It was left open to the plaintiff to file separate applications for appointment of commissioner, and for taking the accounts in respect of