A suit for rendition of accounts of a dissolved partnership firm is competent under Section 69(3)(a) of the Partnership Act, 1932, and is not barred by Section 69(1) and (2) of the Act.

This appeal by the defendant is directed against a judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, U. A. D., Jorhat, in Title Suit No. 30 of 1960.

2. The plaintiffs case is that he and the defendant carried on a business during the years 1953-54 and 1954-55. The plaintiff used to advance money in the business while the defendant used to do contract works, taking contracts in his own name. In that capacity the defendant had earned profits in the business; but, taking advantage of the position that he was managing the business and doing the contract works has refused to pay money to the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to render accounts of the business and pay necessary share of the profits earned by the firm. In a rough estimate, according to the plaintiff, he has received from the defendant a sum of Rs. 7,853/-, which he advanced to the defendant for the purpose of business. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that on 5-11-1955, the defendant made an endorsement in the plaintiffs book to the effect that the final account would be rendered after receipt of the final bills from the works done in 1954-55. The defendant also admitted, it is alleged, that he had received sums of money from the plaintiff.

3. As the defendant did not pay any money to the plaintiff, the latter filed Money Suit No. 6 of 1956 against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 7,853/-. The suit was, however, withdrawn with the permission of the Court to refile it. But the defendant did neither render any account nor did he pay any money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 28-7-1959 through his Advocate intimating the dissolution of the partnership firm with effect from the date of the notice and requested the defendant to render accounts by 30-8-1959. But, as his request was not complied with, the plaintiff has brought the present suit.

4. In the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for Rs. 7853/- or any other amount that may be found due after rendition of accounts of the dissolved firm.

5. The defendant has filed a written statement. He has admitted that he carried on business in partnership with the plaintiff since January, 1953, but he alleges that, as the partnership firm has not yet been dissolved, the question of rendering accounts does not arise. According to the Defendant, the partnership firm sustained a loss of Rupees 10,000/- and, as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive any money. His second plea is : as contract work under the Public Works Department by an unregistered firm is forbidden by law, the plaintiff cannot claim any money or any share of any income by the partnership firm.

6. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues :-

a). Whether the suit is maintainable?

b). Whether there is any partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant?

c). Whether the partnership is liable to be dissolved?

d). Whether the contracts done by the defendant under P. W. D. were on behalf of the partnership business or in his individual capacity?

e). Whether on dissolution of the partnership the parties are liable to render accounts?

f). Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

g). To what relief if any are the parties entitled?

After considering the above issues, the learned trial Court passed the impugned decree by which he declared the partnership firm dissolved and passed the preliminary decree directing rendition of the accounts by the parties and for the appointment of a commission for the purpose.

7. Mr. J.K. Barua, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit is hit by Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act; that a suit for account cannot be combined with a suit for dissolution of partnership; that an unregistered partnership firm cannot take contract under the P. W. D and that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant the impugned decree.

8. The notice dated 28th July, 1959, was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff through his Advocate Mr. R. Barua. In parag