RABINARAYAN MAHASUAR Vs. LOKANATH MOHASUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision challenging the order dated 7-2-2002 of the District Judge, Puri, in M.A. No. 98 of 2000 reversing the order dated 31-8-2000 of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Puri in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2000 (arising out of Title Suit No. 19/501 of 1996/98).

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant and the opposite parties are the plaintiffs who have come on record being substituted as the legal representatives of the original plaintiff (since dead). The original plaintiff has filed the suit under Order XX, Rule 15, CPC for winding up of the partnership firm and for settlement of accounts for the period from 1-4-1982 till the date of the alleged dissolution of the partnership firm on 10-7-1996. His case is that a partnership deed was executed on 30-4-1982 by and between the parties to run the hotel business in the name and style of HOTEL BASANT_ with effect from 1-4-1982. The partnership business was nomenclatured as partnership at will_. From the very beginning, the petitioner was the Managing Partner and was authorised to remain in charge of over all affairs of the hotel as per terms of the deed. He, however, did not care to submit accounts of the business to the original plaintiff despite repeated demands made to him. The petitioner even did not want to settle the accounts in any of the accounting years for division of loss and profits. The original plaintiff was also not allowed to inspect the accounts. In the circumstances, the suit was filed with prayer for settlement of the accounts, winding up of partnership firm, for realisation of interest and the dues after final accounting and for taking suitable action for misappropriation of funds.

(3.) The petitioner in his written statement denied the allegations levelled against him. According to him, he was the live partner with effect from 4-1-985 (although the partnership deed was executed in 1982). The parties have been carrying on partnership business jointly. In the year 2000, for the first time the legal heirs of the original plaintiff filed an application under Order XL, Rule 1, CPC for appointment of receiver. The petitioner filed objection to the said application. His case is that as the live partner he has been regularly filing returns before the concerned authority with the balance-sheet. The property has been hypothecated to the O.S.F.C. whose dues are regularly being paid. In absence of specific allegation of mis-management, prayer for appointment of receiver should be rejected.