In a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of a partnership firm, each partner is a necessary party and liable to render accounts to the others. The representation of the estate of a deceased partner is crucial, and the failure to implead all necessary parties can lead to the dismissal of the suit.

M.L. Singhvi, J. - This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 27.9.1995 whereby he had dismissed the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.8.1985 whereby he had dismissed their suit for rendition of accounts and for dissolution of firm M/s. Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Manimajra.

Facts :

Banwari Lal Gupta and his son Naresh Kumar Gupta filed suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm M/s. Aggarwal Sales Corporation against Mewa Lal son of Kirori Ram r/o Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh. It is alleged in the plaint that Banwari Lal Gupta, Naresh Kumar Gupta, Mewa Lal, and one Kirori Ram floated a firm M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Manimajra on 1.1.1975. It was a partnership firm. Banwari Lal had 40% share, Naresh Kumar had 10% share, Mewa Lal defendant had 10% share while Kirori Ram had 40% share. Mewa Lal-defendant was a working partner. He was maintaining accounts books. He had maintained accounts books of the firm properly till 1970-80. Accounts books were handed over to the plaintiffs for inspection by them but Mewa Lal did not settle accounts. Mewa Lal maintained books but not properly and there were major discrepancies in the books of accounts. It was alleged in the plaint that Mewa Lal-defendant was the accounting party. Banwari Lal and Naresh Kumar-plaintiffs asked for the rendition of accounts. Kirori Ram was party to the suit in the beginning but was given up by the counsel for the plaintiffs on 6.4.1984.

Mewa Lal-defendant contested the suit. It was admitted that there was a partnership between him, plaintiffs and Kirori Ram. It was also admitted that he was maintaining account books. He maintained the books correctly. He handed over the account books to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff. It has also admitted that he was accounting partner. Accounts of the firm were settled. Firm was to pay Rs. 24896.06 paise to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff, which amount has already been paid to him. A sum of Rs. 93765.24 paise was payable by the firm to Kirori Ram. Mewa Lal was to pay Rs. 38442/- to the firm. It was urged that there were other liabilities of the firm like sale tax etc. Plaintiffs should have filed suit for the recovery of specified amount. No suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm was maintainable.

2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the defendant is an accounting party ? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present for ? OPD

3. Whether the accounts have already been settled between the parties and the amount due to the plaintiff No. 2 has already been paid ? OPD

4. Relief.

3. Vide order dated 24.8.1985, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of his findings that no suit was competent in the absence of impleading Kirori Ram who was having 40% share in the firm. It was found that in a suit for rendition of accounts of partnership firm and for its dissolution, all the partners and their legal heirs must be made parties because every partner is a necessary party in the rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership firm. It was found that in a suit for rendition of accounts every partner is practically speaking in the position of a plaintiff or a defendant and each one of them is liable to render accounts to the other and pay the amount found due from him. Suit for rendition of accounts against some of the partners only was not maintainable. It was, however, found that Mewa Lal defendant was maintaining accounts and as such was an accounting party. It was found that M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation was never dissolved and had been continuing its business with Mewa Lal defendant as its working partner and as such the question of the plaintiff filing suit for recovery of specific amount could not arise. It was found that a sum of Rs. 24896.06 paise had been paid to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff. It was found that payment of this