JAGDISH CHANDER DHAWAN Vs. KARAM CHAND MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shri Jagdish Chander Dhawan is the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 492-D of 1960. One Shri Karam Chand Mehra is the first respondent in the said Civil Revision Petition and one Rai Sahib Amar Nath Mehra is the second respondent in the said revision petition and the parties will be referred to hereinafter with reference to their position in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed a suit for dissolution ot partnership and taking of accounts, impleading the second respondent herein as the first defendant and the petitioner herein as the second defendant. In that suit, the petitioner herein filed a written statement contending inter alia, that the first respondent herein also was liable to render accounts as some of the books of the partnership were in his possession and according to the petitioner, on rendition of such accounts, he would be found entitled to a decree tor Rs. 50.000, In the prayer clause, the petitioner prayed that the partnership be dissolved, a decree for rendition of accounts be passed, accounts be gone into and a decree be passed for the amounts found due in favour of the partners. Issues were framed and the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded except for his own statement. On 14-6-1960 the Court passed the following order:

(3.) At the same time, the petitioner herein, also filed an application for a review of this order dated 20-7-1960. A learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, by an order dated 11-1-1961 reviewed this order and restored the suit to file and directed notice to the parties with regard to other prayers of the second defendant for 1-2-1961. The first defendant preferred an appeal against this order dated 11-1-1961 and the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, by an order dated 2-5- 1962 allowed the appeal. It is against this order. Civil Revision Petition No. 476-D of 1962 has been preferred. In my opinion, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 20-7-1960 cannot stand. As indicated already, the suit was adjourned to 22-7-1960 in the presence of all the parties. Without there being any specific order after notice to all the parties for advancing the hearing of the case, it was not open to the learned Subordinate Judge to take up the case in the absence of one of the parties on 20-7- 1960 itself and dismiss the same on the basis of the application filed by the plaintiff. It has to be noticed that though the application filed by the plaintiff for withdrawing the suit referred to the fact that the contesting defendant has agreed to bear his own cost of the suit, there was no reference whatever to the other defendant, viz., the second defendant. The suit was for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The pleadings of all the parties clearly alleged that there was a partnership between all the three parties. In such a case, the second defendant in the suit is vitally concerned and interested in the result of the suit, particularly when he has put forward a claim that if accounts were taken, he would be entitled to a payment of Rs. 50,000. Under these circumstances, it was highly irregular on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to dispose of the matter on 20-7-1960, when the suit had been adjourned to 22-7- 1960 in the presence of all the parties and that too without any notice to the second defendant of the application filed by the plaintiff for withdrawing the suit.