Date of service of summons to be regarded as date of dissolution of partnership firm

These revision petitions are directed against the orders in C.M.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the appeals and thereby set aside the orders passed by him in I.A.Nos.652 and 653 of 1992 in O.S.No.154 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Valliyur.

2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner has filed O.S.No.1 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Tirunelveli which was later transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Valliyur and re-numbered as O.S.No. 154 of 1992, for dissolution of partnership firm, carried on at Door No.1, Periyar Bus Stand Buildings, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction and at Stall at 2, platform in the Periyar Bus Stand buildings, Tirunelveli junction, for rendering real accounts of the partnership firm, for appointment of receiver and for interest on the misappropriated funds and for costs, against the respondents herein. He had also filed two petitions in I.A. Nos. 652 and 653 of 1992 praying for temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from disposing of the leasehold rights and the goods of the firm till the disposal of the suit and for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from preventing the petitioner from conducting and participating in the administration and management of the said ¦business respectively. Those petitions were opposed by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif had passed a common order in which he had allowed both the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, these respondents had filed C.M.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 1992 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. After hearing the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed C.M.A.No.20 of 1992 in part and thereby had given the modified injunction. The learned Judge allowed C.M.A.No.21 of 1992 and thereby vacated the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.653 of 1992 and had dismissed the said I.A.No.653 of 1992. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the trial court has come forward with these two civil revision petitions.

.3. Mr.G.Subramaniam, learned senior counsel, appearing for the revision petitioners, would submit that the plaintiff’s case is that he is a partner of the firm under an oral agreement, that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a partner of the firm, but according to the defendants, it was under a written agreement and the disputed region is only with regard to share and whether the petitioner was a partner under an oral agreement or under a written agreement. He would further submit that in para 4 of the written statement, it is averred that the firm was started including the plaintiff as a partner along with the defendants only on 29. 1987 and the agreements setting forth the terms of the partnership was engrossed on stamp papers of the value of Rs.70 on 11. 1987 and was signed by the plaintiff and the defendants and in para.7 of the written statement, it is stated that the defendants are always ready and willing at all material times to pay over such amount as standing to his credit in the accounts of the firm on his retirement from the firm or dissolution of the firm, and in para. 12 of the written statement, it is averred that the plaintiff, after filing the suit, still continues to attend the partnership firm business, transacts business at the Hotel itself and receives cash and does all acts as partner as he was doing earlier before the filing of the suit, and these averments would go to show that the plaintiffs status as a partner is admitted and his participation as partner is also admitted and in these circumstances, the prayer granted by the trial court ought to have been confirmed by the lower appellate court. He would further submit that the petitioner has got the benefit of injunction all through right from the time of filing of the suit and it may be permitted to continue and there will be no prejudice to the other side. He would