E P SUBRAMANIAN Vs. G K PALANISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH notice was served on the respondent, he has not entered appearance. He was called absent.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Second Additional Sub Court, Erode, in I.A. No. 152 of 1994 in O.S. No.37 of 1993, dated 9.3.1994. The petitioner filed O.S. No.37 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode, contending inter alia that the respondent- second defendant- G.K. Palanisamy, who is none other than his own son-in-law, taking advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioner induced him to invest his hard earned money from his agricultural holdings in Star Fish Tube Well Firm and three other firms, that he is also involved in borrowing from banks for purchase of machinery, etc. The respondent herein did not submit any correct and proper account in spite of repeated demands. Consequently, difference of opinion arose in 1988 and on the petitioner's insistence, he was released from one of the firms. The petitioner further contended that the second respondent was refusing to render correct and proper accounts, which had resulted in issue of notices for dissolution of all the firms, etc. A registered notice dated 25.4.1992 was also sent demanding rendition of proper and correct account of profit and loss of the firm and for dissolution of the first defendant firm. As there was no response from the defendants, the suit was filed praying for a declaration that the first defendant firm was dissolved and the plaintiff was entitled to half share of all the assets and for a direction to the defendants to render proper accounts.

(3.) THE learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, however, by his order dated 9.3.1994, held that the petitioner/ plaintiff has to pay court-fee on Rs.3,00,000 and allowed LA. No. 152 of 1994 filed by the respondent herein. THE petitioner was directed to pay the differential court-fee. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been filed.