K DAMODARAN Vs. SAMUEL AARON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendant and plaintiff respectively in O.S. 80/1955, Subordinate Judges Court, Tellicherry, arise out of an order passed by that court in I. A. 1312/1959 dated 17th September 1959. The said application was filed by the plaintiff under O.11, R.12, 14 and 15 of the C. P. C , for permission to inspect the documents produced in the case by the defendant. The said application was opposed by the defendant. The learned Judge, overruling the objections of the defendant, gave permission to the plaintiff to inspect the accounts for the period from 1-4-1949 till 11-11-1953. The discussion in the judgment shows that the learned Judge intended to permit the plaintiff to inspect documents from 1-4-49. But in the concluding portion of the order, the learned Judge has stated that the period of inspection will be from 1-4-50 till 11-11-53. Evidently, the date 1-4-50 given therein is a mistake for 1-4-49. But anyhow, I will make it clear in my order, when giving final directions in both the C. R. Ps. Against this order permitting the plaintiff to have inspection of the documents produced in this case by the defendant, the latter has filed C. R. P. 739/59 on the ground that the learned Subordinate Judge should not have permitted inspection at all in the circumstances of this case or at any rate, should not have permitted inspection at that stage, without certain other conditions being satisfied by the plaintiff.

(2.) As a condition precedent to the plaintiff being allowed for an inspection of the accounts, in and by the same order, the learned Judge further directed that the plaintiff should produce all the records which he wants to rely upon and that he should also summon witnesses to produce records, if any before the 30th September 1959. The learned Judge has also stated that the plaintiff will not be entitled to rely on documents produced on his side or summons at his request after 30 9 - 59 The plaintiff has filed C.R. P. 785/59 against that portion of the order placing these conditions as against the plaintiff and also restricting the inspection for the period from 1-4-1949 alone, though the account books produced in this case at any rate, are from 1-4-48 also. A minor attack is also made in this C. R. P. that though the learned Judge had intended to give inspection to the plaintiff from 1-4-49, still in the final portion of the order, the learned Judge has restricted it for a period subsequent to 1-4-50. Whether this date, 1-4-50 is due to a mistake or inadvertence, the plaintiff prays for clarification regarding the said period.

(3.) As the suit itself is pending before the lower court, it is desirable that I do not express any views regarding the various allegations made by the plaintiff and controverted by the defendant. It is enough to state that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners in a business known as Timber Supply Company and the Baliapattam Saw Mills. A partnership deed was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant on 24th November 1941 and that has been marked as Ext. B1 in these proceedings. It is stated therein that the partnership business shall be that of a Timber Mill consisting of the purchase and sale of timber and sawing and preparing of timber for sale and of doing such other work connected with the timber business as the parties may agree upon and shall be carried on at the premises of the Mill at Pappinasseri, or such other building or places as the parties may from time to time agree and that the business is also to include the saw Mill business carried on at Pappinasseri. It is also provided, among other conditions, that the management shall be carried on jointly and both the parties shall be active partners provided the parties may, by mutual consent, allot to each of them such duties as they may think necessary and there is also a provision regarding the books of account being kept properly posted and kept in the building of business and the right of the partners to inspect the account at any time is also guaranteed. Though the partnership deed appears to have been executed only on 24th November 1941, the partner-ship itself appears to have come into existence from 1st August 1940.