Failure to provide evidence for notification and unauthorized property sales by partners led to the rejection of the dissolution suit; jurisdiction determined by prior judicial orders must be respected.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. First Appeal no.719 of 2024 is filed challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) whereby, Special Civil Suit no.21 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit”) has been rejected. In subsequently filed First Appeal no.3375 of 2024, the challenge is to the order dated 29.09.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed below application, Exh.52 insofar as the prayer of the plaintiff, seeking direction to the defendants to tender a duly audited accounts by the registered Chartered Accountant, has been refused. For the sake of convenience, parties to the suit, are referred to as per their original status.

2. Mr Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel with Mr Jamshed Kavina, learned advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the application, Exh.52, contained twofold prayers; firstly, passing of a preliminary decree, declaring the proportionate shares of the parties and to fix a date on which the partnership shall stand dissolved or deemed to have been dissolved; and secondly, direction to the defendant nos.1 and 5 to tender in Court, duly audited accounts by the Chartered Accountant along with all the passbooks, cheque books etc. in respect of the assets of M/s Pruthvi Development Corporation, a registered partnership firm – defendant no.1. It is submitted that the Trial Court, directed dissolution of the defendant no.1 partnership firm from the date of passing of the order with a further direction to draw the preliminary decree accordingly. The Trial Court, ought to have directed drawing of a preliminary decree, declaring the proportionate share of the parties and the date ought to have been fixed on which the partnership stood dissolved or deemed to have been dissolved. It is submitted that after the dissolution, no decree is drawn in terms of Order XX Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). The preliminary decree has to be drawn in terms of Form 21 of Appendix-D to the Code; however, no steps have been taken in furtherance thereof.

2.1 It is submitted that out of two prayers, the learned Judge, has granted only one, the prayer of direction to the defendants to tender in Court duly audited accounts by the registered Chartered Accountant together with other record, has not been granted. As per clause 12 of the partnership deed, all the partners had right to access the accounts of the firm and therefore, the prayer for the accounts, ought to have been allowed to the plaintiff. It is submitted that despite the fact that the preliminary decree was already passed vide the impugned order, instead of drawing the decree, the Trial Court, misdirected itself and rejected the suit by impugned judgment and decree dated 24.01.2024.

2.2 It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 has disposed of the property which he could not have by way of a registered sale deed inasmuch as, the defendant no.2 had no right to act on behalf of all the partners as per the agreement. Resultantly, the act of the defendant no.2 of selling the suit property, was illegal and contrary to the interest of the defendant no.1 – partnership firm and in clear contravention of clause 13 of the partnership deed. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, has given undue weightage to clause 11 of the partnership deed which, gives some authority to the defendant no.2 to deal with the suit property. Right to deal with the suit property on behalf of the partners was v