Rekha Sharma, J.

This is a suit by the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

The reliefs claimed are as under:-

a) That the partnership business of M/s Bharat Chatai Bhandar, 6534, Khari Baoli, Delhi as per partnership deed dated April 01, 1999 may be dissolved.

b) The accounts of the business including profit, interest, capital, rent, damages for use and occupation and goodwill of the partnership business M/s Bharat Chatai Bhandar and M/s New Bharat Chatai Bhandar may be rendered to the plaintiffs and the amount so ascertained as due to the plaintiffs and against the defendants may be paid to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs undertake to make the payment of the deficient court fees according to law.

c) The plaintiffs may be allowed interest at the rate of 15% p.a. pendentelite and future till payment.

d) Costs of the suit may be allowed to the plaintiffs against the defendants.

The defendants not only have filed written statement to the plaint and thereby have controverted the averments made therein but have also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the reliefs claimed are barred by limitation. It is this application which is the subject matter of the present order.

It is well settled that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it is only the facts pleaded in the plaint which are to be taken into account and if on the basis of those facts it is found that the suit is barred by any law or is hit by any other clause of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, then alone is the plaint liable to be rejected. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the facts but only such facts which emerge from the plaint. They are as under:-

Way-back in the year 1958, father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 and grand-father of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2, namely, Shri Amar Nath started his business of mats and other allied items under the name and style of M/s Bharat Chatai Bhandar. He was the sole proprietor of the said concern and he operated his business from shop No.6534, Khari Baoli, Delhi which he had taken on rent in his name. He continued to run his business as a proprietorship concern till March 31, 1980 and thereafter from April 01, 1980 it was converted into a partnership concern comprising of three partners including himself and his two sons who are plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. A Partnership Deed dated April 08, 1980 containing detailed terms and conditions was executed and it was made effective from April 01, 1980. The partnership firm adopted the same name as was the name of the sole proprietorship concern, i.e. M/s Bharat Chatai Bhander.

It so happened that certain amendments as to payment of salary, commissions, loans, remuneration and interest to partners were made in the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as a result thereof, consequential amendments were required to be made in the terms and conditions of the Partnership Deed. Therefore, a fresh Partnership Deed dated April 01, 1992 was executed and except for the changes made consequent to the amendment in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the remaining terms and conditions of the Partnership Deed were, by and large, kept intact. Thereafter, in the year 1999 the Partnership Deed underwent yet another change. This time on account of the fact that the sons of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 were also inducted into the partnership business and consequently, a fresh Partnership Deed dated April 01, 1999 was executed. However, the name of the partnership business continued to be the same and so also some of the terms and conditions.

The further facts which emerge from the plaint are that Shri Amar Nath expired on April 23, 2004 and consequent upon his death, sometime in the year 2004 defendants acquired shop No.7251, Beri Wala Bagh, Pul Bangash, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-110