A judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be invoked when the alleged admission is not clear, categorical, or is coupled with substantive objections that go to the root of the suit's maintainability.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. The City Civil Court Appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (‘trial Court’) in I.A.No.393 of 2022 in O.S.No.479 of 2018, whereby a petition filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, to pass judgment and preliminary decree dissolving appellant No.1-firm has been allowed with costs in favour of respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff.

Brief facts of the case:

3. In short, respondent No.1 herein filed suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts against the appellants and the respondent No.2 herein. In said suit, after filing of the written statement, respondent No.1 filed the I.A.No.393 of 2022 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, to pass a preliminary decree with respect to the dissolution of partnership on the basis of admission made by the appellants in a reply notice dated 19.03.2022 and paragraph No.13 of the written statement filed on 02.11.2018.

4. Respondent No.1 pleaded that for the purpose of rendition of accounts, I.A.No.1674 of 2018 was filed and a notice was given under Order VII Rule 8 of CPC to the learned counsel for appellants to produce income tax returns from the year 2010 onwards upto the year 2016 along with balance sheet. Upon receiving said notice, the appellants herein have sent reply on 19.03.2022 with a clear and categorical admission about dissolution of firm i.e. appellant No.1. In the said reply, it is stated that once a notice of termination was received from respondent No.1, since the partnership is at will under Section 43 of Partnership Act, 1932 (‘Partnership Act’), the partnership got terminated or dissolved and said fact was communicated to the concerned authorities. There is a specific pleading that the partnership discontinued its business with effect from 01.04.2016. In view of said clear admission, according to respondent No.1, a preliminary decree can be passed and therefore, the petition was filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

5. The appellants opposed the I.A. under appeal referring to Section 42 of Partnership Act, which deals with dissolution by notice of partnership at will. A partner can dissolve a firm by giving notice in writing stating his intention to dissolve the partnership from a particular date. Respondent No.1 got a legal notice dated 23.08.2015 issued determining the partnership with effect from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was received by the appellants on 26.08.2015. At paragraph No.13 of the written statement, there is a clear mention that appellant No.1 partnership firm was dissolved when respondent No.1 got a legal notice issued, appellant No.1 firm stood closed with effect from 30.09.2015. The closure of the partnership firm was informed to Commercial Tax Officer on 06.12.2016. The suit was filed on 11.07.2018 and on said date appellant No.1 firm is not in existence and therefore, it is the case of appellants that the suit ought to be dismissed as not maintainable. The appellants denied the contents of written statement being admission which can be acted upon under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The income tax returns have been submitted to concerned authorities for the 2010 to 2016 and therefore, said relief is also not maintainable. Appellant No.2 is the sole owner of all the immovable properties claimed by respondent No.1 and said properties do not belong to appellant No.1-partnership firm and therefore, the appellants sought dismissal of the suit.

6. In that