In a partnership dissolution and rendition of accounts case, the court's interference with the report of a local commissioner is limited. The court will not overturn the commissioner's findings unless there are clearly defined and sufficient grounds to do so.

1. This appeal is directed against the final decree of the trial Court passed in the suit for rendition of accounts whereby a decree for Rs. 27,650.48 has been passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant.

2. The suit was filed by Puran Chand against Raj Kumar for the dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts of the firm known as M/s. Thaper Label Industries, Ludhiana, which was carrying on the business of manufacturing woven labels under the name and style of M/s. Thaper Label Industries, Ludhiana. The partnership deed dated November 1,1965 was duly executed between the parties. The whole capital required for the partnership was invested by the plaintiff free of interest whereas the defendant was not required to invest any capital. It may be stated that the defendant is the real nephew of the plaintiff. The profits of business were to be divided in the ratio of 65 and 35 between the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively. The defendant was to manage the whole factory work whereas the plaintiff was to look after the sales. The defendant was not responsible for the losses. The partnership was at will. The partnership was carried amicably up to March 31, 1968, when differences arose between the parties. It was mutually decided to dissolve the firm and the balance-sheet for the year ending March 31,1968, was prepared accordingly. The account books of the firm were maintained by the defendant who took upon himself the responsibility for preparing the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account and to render the accounts to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the firm was not dissolved; hence the suit both for dissolution of the firm and for the rendition of accounts. During the pendency of the suit, both the parties agreed for the passing of the preliminary decree as it was admitted that the firm stood dissolved with effect from March 31,1968. Consequently, the preliminary decree for rendition of accounts was passed. A local commissioner was appointed for the purposes of the passing of the final decree who submitted a detailed report after seeking the help of a Chartered Accountant as the accounts were quite lengthy and intricate. The local commissioner filed his report, Exhibit P. W. 16/A, dated January 16, 1971. Vide said report, the defendant was liable to pay Rs. 30,550.48 to the plaintiff. However, objections to the said report were filed on behalf of both the parties. According to the defendant, the report of the local commissioner was one sided, biased, based on conjectures and ran counter to the situations and was, thus, liable to be set aside. After allowing the parties to lead evidence to the objections filed, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the report of the local commissioner was correct in all respects except to the extent of Rs.2,900/-. Consequently, the defendant was held liable to pay Rs. 27,650.48 to the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that no proper opportunity was afforded by the local commissioner to lead evidence and, therefore, his report Exhibit P. W. 16/A, was liable to be set aside. As regards the finding of the trial Court, it was contended that the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence led by him was not considered and, therefore, the findings arrived at are vitiated. According to the learned counsel it was for the Court to go into the oral evidence and to give its own findings after appreciating the entire evidence. The learned counsel particularly referred to five items which according to him have not been taken into consideration either by the trial Court or by the local Commissioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

5. In such matter where the local commissioner is appointed to go into the accounts and to