JUDGMENT :

Mr. H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. RF Totla with learned advocate Mr. N.C. Thakkar on behalf of appellant and learned advocate Mr. KV Shelat appearing for respondents. In this group of appeals, Vipinchandra Pranlal Shah join as a party respondent no. 4 as observer by order dated 26.11.2008 and learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah appearing for respondent no. 4 observer during pendency of present proceeding.

2. The observer has filed his affidavit before this Court in FA 4677 of 2008 to FA no. 4681 of 2008 dated 16.12.2008. Shri Vipinchandra Pranlal Shah, aged 65 years, Income Tax Practitioner makes this affidavit. According to him, he has been join as party respondent no. 4 in present proceeding and as per order of District Court, Nadiad present respondents are appointed as interim receivers and on inquiry, it appears that they were served with receivership letter (Receiver Patra) on 4.8.2008.

3. According to observer, he was not informed by District Court, Nadiad in writing that he was appointed as observer as per interim order dated 30.6.2008. However, according to him, he know both appellants and respondents as he had an occasion for years to represent them before Income Tax Department for filing returns. His name was suggested as Arbitrator before Trial Court, Nadiad, but he had shown his inability for acting as an Arbitrator, due to age and health.

4. According to him, respondent who was appointed as interim receivers has apprised him of an order passed by District Court, Nadiad. In original order name shown as Bipinchandra Pranlal Shah as Chartered Accountant but in fact his name is Vipinchandra Pranlal Shah, an Income Tax Practitioner. According to him, he is likely to under-go operation for both eyes and he may request Court for appointing another observer. He had asked for details for audited accounts of firms are concerned for year ended on 31.3.2008. This audited accounts are made by Auditor M/s. Mistry & Associates, Ahmedabad and returns in that regard were filed on September, 2008 through E filing.

5. As regards allegations alleged to have been made by appellants, according to him that after issuance of receiver patra, there are no allegations which have been communicated to him, therefore, it is not possible to dwell upon same. According to him, parties need to take a constructive approach to resolve their disputes, so that running business and prestige earned by their father and predecessor are not subject to disrepute or loss of business and parties should make endeavour to divide all properties as per their shares by appointing a Government approved valuer, who will value movable and immovable properties, which render a firm base for further resolving their disputes. Meantime, due to non furnishing of papers, orders by Court as well as documents as alleged by appellant, due to peculiar circumstances of his family and due to his health, he is not able to continue work as observer.

6. According to him, in appeal no. 4677 of 2008 filed before this Court that appellant has also not any faith in observer to work as an observer. Therefore, looking to circumstances as narrated in affidavit by observer, he requested to this Court to take appropriate action or decision as deemed to be fit if since he is likely to under go operation for both eyes and he also tendered his unconditional apology.

7. The aforesaid affidavit as referred above given a clear picture between appellants and respondents, those who are real brothers having doubt upon each other and loss faith between each other which ultimately damaged unity of family business and reputation of partnership firm.

8. In this group of appeals, all learned advocates appearing for respective parties including this Court also made sincere efforts to see that dispute between real brothers may be resolved happily, for that, papers were sent to mediation ce