RAMESHCHANDRA RANCHHODDAS Vs. HARIDAS NARANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that arises for determination is whether because of Clause 20 of the partnership deed, Exhibit 55, the suit was liable to be rejected as filed without complying with the condition precedent agreed upon between the parties for going to a civil court to litigate the question.

(2.) It is to be noted that as per the partnership deed, Exhibit 5, a firm was floated to do business. The suit was filed for dissolution of the firm, alleging inter alia also that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had misconducted themselves. The learned Judge, however in effect held that the question of misconduct and alleged consequential right of the plaintiffs to terminate the partnership was not required to be gone into because the partnership was at will and above-mentioned clause 20 did not stand attracted when the question related to the winding up. It is this finding, which has been confirmed by the learned appellate Judge, and it has given rise to the present appeal.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants (original defendant Nos. 1 and 2) has taken the court through the relevant portion of the plaint and urged that there was a dispute between the partners in terms of clause 20 and had the matter rested or concerned itself with that dispute, perhaps the argument advanced would have prevailed, but as rightly held by the learned trial Judge and also by the learned appellate Judge, the suit also proceeded alternatively on the ground that it was a partnership at will, which had stood terminated by a simple notice, and the prayer for dissolution was only a drab formality.