The residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

R.C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Smt. Ram Kishori Plaintiff-opposite party No. 3 filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Ultimately a preliminary decree was passed in that suit with a direction to Defendant-Applicant No. 1 that he should render the accounts. After a long gap opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 applied for preparation of a final decree. The Applicants filed objection to the preparation of final decree on the ground that they were not required to render accounts to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and further that the application made by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 was barred by time. The objection of the Applicants was rejected by the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, by his order dated 6th September 1975. The Applicants filed a revision before the District Judge against the order of the I Additional Civil Judge, which was also rejected by the III Additional District Judge, Kanpur, by his judgment and order dated 26th November, 1977. Aggrieved, the Applicants have come to this Court in revision.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicants has contended that as no limitation is prescribed for preparation of final decree under the Indian Limitation Act, the residuary Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act would apply and the period of limitation for preparation of the final decree would be three years from the date of preliminary decree and as the application was filed after about five years, the same was barred by time.

3. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contended that the residuary Article 137 will not apply in the suits relating to dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. He has further contended that as there is no provision for applying for preparation of final decree in the CPC hence the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act will not apply and there would be no limitation for applying for preparation of final decree.

4. I have considered the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the parties.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to examine the provisions in respect of nature of the suit. Order XX Rule 15 of the CPC provides for a decree in a suit for dissolution of a partnership, which is reproduced below: (Order 20, Rule 15 quoted Editor)

6. Similarly in respect of a suit for partition also it provides for passing of a preliminary decree. The aforesaid provision, therefore, clearly indicates that it is not incumbent upon the Court to pass a preliminary decree. However, it may pass a preliminary decree if it is necessary. Apart from it, there is no provision under the CPC which may direct or make it incumbent upon a party to apply for preparation of a final decree. In fact the provision makes it clear that it is the duty of the Court to pass final decree keeping in view the nature of the suits. Thus there can be no limitation for applying for preparation of a final decree unless it is specifically provided under the Limitation Act. As no limitation can be provided, hence Article 137 of the Limitation Act would not apply.

7. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicants in respect of applicability of residuary Article 137 cannot be accepted on another ground also. There is a specific mention in Article 137 of the Limitation Act that there would be three years' limitation in respect of an application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere and this period of three years would run from the date when the right to apply accrues. Admittedly in the present case no right accrues for applying for preparation of a final decree. As no right accrues, the question of application of this Article does not arise. I am fortified with the view expressed by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in Bhusan Chandra Mondal v. Chhabimoni Dasi AIR 1948 Cal 363, that in a suit for partition and accounts Article 181 of the Act will not apply. Article 181 of the Limitation Act of 190