2009 Supreme(J&K) 174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Sunil Hali, J.
Mukhtar Ahmed Wani & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Ramzan Wani & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 2/2009, CMP No. 52/2009 a/w OWP No. 622/2008, 82/2007 And 194/2008, 574/2005
Decided On : 24 April, 2009
Advocate For Appellant: R.A. Jan
Advocate For Respondent: M.Y. Bhat
Advocate For Respondent: M.A. Wani
Advocate For Respondent: I. Sofi
Advocate For Respondent: Anil Bhan
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court must address fundamental issues and frame preliminary issues before proceeding with a trial.
Headnote:
Partnership - Kerosene Oil Distribution - Partnership Act - Section 69
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the distribution of kerosene oil and the partnership between the parties. The respondent filed a suit seeking declaration that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Deputy Commissioner was null and void, and also sought to restrain the petitioners from acting upon the said NOC. The trial court had directed to maintain status quo with respect to the NOC until the rights of the parties were determined.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had failed to address fundamental issues such as the locus standi of the plaintiff, the permissibility of shifting the kerosene oil storage, and the maintainability of the suit under section 69(3) of the Partnership Act. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to frame preliminary issues and address all preliminary objections before proceeding with the trial.
Issues: The issues included the locus standi of the plaintiff, the permissibility of shifting the kerosene oil storage, and the maintainability of the suit under section 69(3) of the Partnership Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court had failed to address fundamental issues and had made a roving enquiry while passing the order. It emphasized the need for the trial court to examine the preliminary issues before proceeding with the trial.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the parties were directed to appear before the court below.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Before adverting to the controversy involved in the present suit, it is important to note that respondent-1 has filed a suit before District Judge, Pulwama seeking dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The premises on the basis of which the suit has been filed is that respondent-1 is partner in the firm called Shopian Oil Agency with late Lassa Wani. It is stated that he has made investment in running of the aforementioned business and has sought rendition of accounts. In essence, it is a suit for dissolution. It is important to note that one of the prayers sought by respondent-1 is that Indian Oil Corporation should not transfer dealership in the name of petitioner-1, which stood in the name of late Lassa Wani.
3. That District Judge had also passed an interim ex parte order on 17-10-05 cancelling the licence issued in favour of non-applicant-15 (petitioner-1 herein). In pursuant to the direction issued by the District Judge, respondent-7 had cancelled the licence of petitioner and diverted supply of the Kerosene to the Kerosene Oil Dealers of the valley. This order came to be challenged by the petitioners in the High Court. Writ was allowed and direction was issued to the respondents to hear the petitioners in the matter before any order is passed. It was observed that in case any licence is issued in favour of petitioners, same shall be subject to any order that may be passed by the civil court.
4. One more writ petition has been filed by respondent-1 seeking writ of mandamus directing the Indian Oil Corporation to reconsider the matter regarding issuance of licence in favour of petitioner. The Honble Court has issued notice in the case on 5-9-2008.
5. Another writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 7-10-06 whereby respondent has allotted quota of kerosene to some other dealers of the valley. Further prayer sought is that respondents 2 and 3 in the said writ petition be directed forthwith to renew licence No. 24 KDL dated 10-11-2001 already issued to the petitioner therein.
6. The contentions raised in the aforementioned writ petitions relate only to the renewal of licence by the Indian Oil Corporation and diversion of supply of kerosene oil to othe