2026:CGHC:4125 NAFR RAHUL JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.23 16:06:30 +0530 Judgment reserved on 19-01-2026 Judgment delivered on 23-01-2026 FA No. 135 of 2007 Deepak Dubey S/o Late Shri Kedar Nath Dubey Aged About 64 Years R/o Krishna Kutir Opposite New Bus Stand, Near Hotel Guru, Pandri, Raipur Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G.

... Appellant Versus

1 - Krishna Kant Dubey, Alias K.K. Dubey (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-01-2025)

1.1 - (A) Anand Dubey S/o Late Shri Krishna Kant Dubey Aged About 55 Years R/o Sukhsagar, Phool Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Abhishek Dubey S/o Late Shri Krishna Kant Dubey Aged About 50 Years R/o Sukhsagar, Phool Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

….Respondents (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondents : Ms. Devika Thakur, Advocate with Mr.

Ribhav Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Thakur Anand Mohan Singh, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J

C A V Judgment

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendant/appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 7-B/2006 (Krishna Kant Dubey v. Deepak Dubey & another), whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. (a) The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.

76,598/-, pleading inter alia that the plaintiff and the defendants were carrying on a partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Shilpa Enterprises, situated at 10–11, R.D.A. Market, Sharda Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). The said partnership firm was constituted on 01.04.1997 and was subsequently dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 01.04.2005.

(b) According to the plaintiff, prior to the dissolution of the firm, the accounts of the partnership were duly settled and, upon such settlement, Defendant No. 1 became liable to pay a sum of Rs. 76,598/- as stated hereinabove. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 failed to pay the said amount. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to Defendant No. 1. Thus, the cause of action arose on 01.04.2005, when the deed of dissolution was executed and the accounts were settled, and further arose on the date of issuance of the legal notice as well as on the date on which the said legal notice was served upon Defendant No. 1.

4. In the said Civil Suit, the defendant submitted the written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendants stated that both the parties were doing business in partnership and the firm was reconstituted on 1.4.1997. Before reconstitution of the firm, the business was being carried on by two partners i.e. the Plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The dead of partnership was executed on 01/07/1992. The partnership firm stood dissolved on and from 1.4.2005 and the deed of dissolution was also executed on 1.4.2005. It is contended by the defendant that he signed the deed of dissolution dated 1.4.2005 on the assurance given by Mr. R.K.Khemaka, Income Tax Adviser of the firm and further, it was all in good faith, however, the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the deed of dissolution has filed the suit for recovery for Rs. 76,598/-. In fact there is no liability of the defendant to pay any amount to the plaintiff as the accounting of the business of the dissolved partnership was not completed till 1.4.2005, hence, the deed of dissolution was prepared and signed by the partners in trust. The balance sheet as on 31/03/2005 has not yet been given to the defendant. It was further averred that before the dissolution of the firm, accounts of the business of the firm were settled and denied that def