JAYESH PANDYA Vs. SUKANYA HOLDINGS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had earlier framed two Issues as Preliminary Issues. They are :- (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act; in the said order Section 67 was quoted. By consent it was corrected. (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in as much as the plaintiff has filed the present suit No. 2812 of 2001 without withdrawing his earlier Suit No. 1991/2000 for the same cause of action.

(2.) I heard Advocate Mr. Sen, appearing for the plaintiff; Advocate Mr. Dhakephalkar, appearing for defendant No. 13; Advocate Mr. Sanjay Jain, appearing for defendant No. 22; and defendant No. 7 in person. Following is the background for raising the preliminary objections. Plaintiff Jayesh Pandya was the real estate broker. He was doing a business in the name of Pandya and Shah Associates. A partnership firm, in the name and style of M/s. Hetali Construction Company came to be formed in 1992. One Ms. Jaikirti Mehta was a partner with 10% share; the plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 2 were to have 50% share and, defendant No. 4, through his nominated Company defendant No. 1 was to have 40% share. Then on 11.3.1993 Jaikirti Mehta retired from the firm. Her 10% share was distributed and then the firm continued between the plaintiff and his brother and Gupta-defendant No. 4 through defendant No. 1. Mr. Gupta acquired some tdr rights through his front company and dispute arose between the plaintiff and him. This is in May 2000 the plaintiff has filed the Suit vide Suit No. 1991 of 2000 [herein after referred to as the 1 st suit] for dissolution of the firm and accounts of the said firm and, declaration that the deed of conveyance be declared as null and void.

(3.) Thereafter i. e. before the 1st suit was withdrawn, the plaintiff filed the second suit vide Suit No. 2812 of 2001 and prayed that the suit firm viz. M/ s. Hetali Construction Company stands dissolved with effect from the date of filing of the present suit or in the alternative, the Court should dissolve the firm and for other consequential reliefs and accounts etc. It was also prayed in the 2nd suit that the original documents, as per particulars given in Exhibit t, be cancelled and for a declaration that deed of conveyance dated 29.6.99 (Exhibit H) be declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, then other relief of possession was sought. It is in this background that the defendants took out the aforesaid two motions and on the basis of which the aforesaid two issues were framed as preliminary issues.