The necessity of rendering a judgment before passing a final decree in a trial court.

R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. This Appeal has been filed against the final decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Salem in O.S. No. 167 of 2011, dated 17.12.2015.

2. The Appellants are the Defendants and the Respondent is the Plaintiff. The suit was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for passing a preliminary decree for the dissolution of the partnership firm M/s. Edward Earth Movers and for a direction to the first appellant to render the accounts before the court and for passing a decree against the second appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum and for cost of the suit.

3. The case of the Respondent/Plaintiff is that the respondent/plaintiff along with the second appellant/second defendant started a firm M/s. Edward Earth Movers, the first appellant/first defendant and in pursuance of which a partnership deed was entered into between the respondent/plaintiff and the second appellant/second defendant at Karumandurai, on 01.02.2011; that that object of the firm was to let out Earth movers, Boclaines, Excavators etc., on hire for contract work and other related works and the same was a partnership at Will; that the respondent/plaintiff had invested a total sum of Rs. 7,90,000/- by way of cheque bearing No. 228121 dated 03.02.2011, drawn on the South Indian Bank Limited, Salem, to M/s. SSS Equipment as advance for the purchase of a Hyundai Hydraulic Excavator, on behalf of the firm and further the respondent/ plaintiff invested a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No. 2281122, dated 04.02.2011, drawn on the South Indian Bank Limited, Salem, to M/s. Malcons Industrial and Mining Tools Co. Equipment as advance for the purchase of a Hydraulic Breaker and initially though it was agreed by the partners that they would invest equally, but the second appellant/second defendant insisted that the respondent/plaintiff pay the advances and that he would reimburse the respondent/plaintiff with half the capital; that subsequently the Hydraulic machines were purchased by the firm and were in the custody and governance of the second appellant/second defendant and that he was managing the day to day affairs of the firm; that the second appellant/second defendant also in his individual capacity borrowed a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs which was paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the second appellant/second defendant in his individual account by way of a RTOS Transfer on 25.02.2010, which is the second appellant/second defendant undertook to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum; that since the second appellant/ second defendant failed to pay any amount either towards principal or interest. Hence a separate court fee was paid in the suit for recovery of the above amount of Rs. 2 lakhs.

4. The further case of the respondent/plaintiff is that since the second appellant/second defendant got control of managing the firm and the assets of the firm by gradually giving pinpricks and also started to burk all the affairs of the firm from the respondent/plaintiff and refused to show any accounts or transactions to the respondent/plaintiff in spite of his repeated demands; that since the second appellant/second defendant did not heed to any of the request of the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff issued a notice dated 21.07.2011 calling upon the second appellant/second defendant to render proper accounts and also claimed his share of the investments and also the loan given to the second appellant/second defendant, but he did not reply to the same; that again on 29.09.2011 the respondent/plaintiff issued another legal notice to the second appellant/second defendant calling upon him to render accounts and claiming his dues, even that notice was also not responded; that in any event of any loss to the said business and non repayment of loan amount to the company for the Hire Purchase made suppliers would result in legal consequences and the respondent/plaintiff