N SIVAMANI Vs. THILAGAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order of Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram, made in I. A. No. 1187 of 2000 in O. S. No. 523 of 1997, dated 1. 2. 2001 allowing the petition filed by the Plaintiff under Order XVI, Rule 21 and Section 151 C. P. C. directing the first Defendant to produce the petition mentioned documents into the Court in connection with O. S. No. 523 of 1997. Defendants 1 and 2 are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) O. S. NO. 523 of 1997:- First Respondent/plaintiff has filed this suit to pass a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership firm M/s. Navasakthi Silks. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and the Defendants were doing the business of manufacturing and selling of Silk sarees; carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Navasakthi Silks. The Plaintiff and the third Defendant are each entitled to the share of profit and loss at the rate of 33%. The first and the second Defendants are entitled to the share of 33%. The firm was having 22 silk looms and it had advanced a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the Weavers out of the turnover of the firm. In or about December 1995, the Plaintiff came to know that without the Plaintiff's consent, the third Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from a Finance Company and utilised a major part of the money for his personal benefit and to the detriment of the Plaintiff's interest in the firm. The Plaintiff was no longer permitted to look into the accounts by the first and third Defendants. The Plaintiff suspects that the Defendants have colluded together against the Plaintiff's interest to defraud the Plaintiff legitimate share of profit. The Plaintiff further apprehends that the Defendants in order to deceive and defraud the Plaintiff's due share and profit and trying to create debts to the firm with the third parties. Alleging that the Defendants 1 and 3 are acting against the interest of the firm, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for dissolution of the firm - M/s. Navasakthi Silks and also for the rendition of the accounts directing the Defendants to render the accounts.

(3.) DENYING the allegations in the Plaint, the first Defendant has filed the counter statement contending that only third Defendant was running the firm as the Managing Partner and the Plaintiff's Husband namely Venkatesan was looking after the business along with the third Defendant. Since the Plaintiff's Husband was an employee of Krishna Silk Marketing Society at Kancheepuram. First Defendant, second Defendant and the Plaintiff are female partners and hence, they were not taking active part in the business. The Plaintiff's Husband Venkatesan and the third Defendant had taken all the accounts of the firm. In the month of November 1995, the first Defendant came to understand that the Plaintiff's Husband and the third Defendant have been doing some mischief in the management of the partnership business. When the first Defendant questioned the same, the third Defendant and the Plaintiff's Husband had removed the entire accounts book from the business premises and stopped the business abruptly. The third Defendant had raised a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with the Plaintiff's Husband without the consent of the Defendants 1 and 2. That loan was raised from Vanni Vinayaga Investments and only the third Defendant was the active partner of the said Investments. Taking advantage of being the active partner of the partnership firm and also of the said Finance Company, the third Defendant misusing his official capacity as the Managing partner of M/s. Navasakthi Silks had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on various occasions from the said Vanni Vinayaga Investments. The consent of the other partners have not been taken to borrow a huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as loan to the partnership business. The third Defendant had already filed the suit in O. S. No. 541 of 1997 for rendition of accounts against the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 and the first Defendant had already filed her counter in the said suit. Only the Plaintiff and the third Defendant alone are responsible for all the account books.