HAREN J DOSHI Vs. PRATAPRAI GAURISHANKER TRIVEDI (ABETED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original defendant no. 11 in Regular Civil Suit No. 787 of 2000 is before this Court challenging the order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 11, Rajkot. By the aforesaid order passed below Ex. 38 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 45 of 2007, the learned Judge dismissed the application of the appellant filed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for short).

(2.) The respondents no. 1 to 7 in this petition are the original plaintiffs and the rest of the respondents are original defendants no. 8 to 19. The original plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 787 of 2000 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajkot against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they along with the defendants have incorporated a partnership firm in the name and style of 'M/s. Coronation Motors' by a partnership deed dated 14.11.1985. It is their case that they have built sheds in the Madhapar Industrial Area in Plot No. 8 of Revenue Survey No. 111. That such sheds and offices are given on rent and the rent is being collected by the defendants no. 6, 9 and 10. It is the plaintiffs' grievance that the defendants partners are not giving accounts of the rents collected and are not maintaining books of accounts. That the books of accounts are in their possession and as a result of mismanagement of such accounts, they prayed for a declaration that the partnership at will be dissolved. The suit also prayed for rendering of accounts of partnership; that an inventory be made of the goods and the furniture and other belongings of the partnership and the defendant partners be restrained from selling them. The plaintiffs further prayed that the defendants be restrained from collecting rent from the properties of the partnership which were let out and such rent be deposited in the Court.

(3.) Shri Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the order of the learned Appellate Court rejecting the application is bad. Drawing my attention to the averments made in the application, Shri Gandhi submitted that the reading of such application makes it clear that the documents which were sought to be brought on record were not within his knowledge or could not even after the exercise of due diligence be produced by him. He further submitted that by way of Ex. 12, the documents were already on record in the appeal and therefore no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs - respondents in appeal if such documents are brought on record.