An appellate court's review is confined to issues raised in the trial court; interference with established audit findings lacks jurisdiction without evidence of wrongdoing.

JUDGMENT

T.AMARNATH GOUD,J. - Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] This second appeal, has been under Sec. -100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , read with Order-XLII Rule-1 for reversing the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 25/11/2019 and 3/12/2019 respectively, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Title Appeal No.67 of 2016 and for restoring the judgment and final decree dtd. 29/8/2014 and 20/9/2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No.54 of 2010.

[3] At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court:

"1. Whether the validity of the audit report, submitted by a Chartered Accountant can be scrutinized, in view of the statutory provisions contained in the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949?

2. Whether an appellate Court has any jurisdiction to return a finding, thereby interfering into any matter, which was specifically and categorically admitted by the appellant thereto in the trial Court?

[4] The case of the appellants, in short, is that, the respondent No.1, as the plaintiff had instituted a title suit, marked as Title Suit No.54 of 2010, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of the accounts etc., before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura, impleading thereat, the appellants and the respondent Nos.2 and 3, pursuant whereto, a Chartered Accountant Firm was duly appointed for determining the shares of the partners. Thereafter, an Audit report was prepared and on relying on the same, the learned trial Court passed a decree, thereby determining the shares of each partner. Feeling aggrieved, and including new pleas and reliefs, the respondent No.1 had preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Title Appeal No.67 of 2016 and by the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 25/11/2019 and 3/12/2019 respectively, the same was disposed of, thereby returning findings in furtherance of manifest errors of law. Assailing the same, the appellants have preferred the instant second appeal before this Court for further adjudication.

[5] The learned District Judge, based on the pleadings of both the parties and after interacting the arguments of the counsel for the parties has observed as under:

"In view of above discussion, the appeal is hereby allowed. the impugned order dtd. 3/9/2016 passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby quashed so far it relates to the distribution of shares and preparation of final decree. The parties will get their respective share as per indication given above. Initially the current liabilities of Rs. Rs.21,92,340.00 will be met up from the current assets and fixed assets and thereafter, Rs.55,42,216.00 will be distributed to the plaintiff, defendant no.2 and legal representatives of defendant no.3 at the ratio 4 : 4 : 2 (i.e. 40%, 40% and 20% respectively).Whenever, any amount from Sundray Debtors, security deposits, D-call money or loan refundment from Sukumar Majumder, or any part thereof will be received, same will also be distributed to the parties as per above said ratio or percentage. If during pendency of the lis or thereafter till distribution of assets, any party receives or has received any amount from the assets of the Firm r from any partner, same will be adjusted/set off accordingly.

[6] The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, after interacting the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusal of the material documents has held thus:

"In the result, the TS. 54/2010 stands decreed on contest with cost. The partnership firm under name and style "Maa Sarada Devi Industires" stands dissolved on and fro