JAYAKRUSHNA SAHU Vs. HARINARAYAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the Petitioner against an order rejecting his petition under Order 14 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction of the court as a preliminary issue. The suit was brought for rendition of accounts on the plea that a partnership had been entered into between the Parties at Cuttack but the business was carried on at Dhenkanal by the Defendant who was the managing partner and had been in over -all management of the business with the books of accounts remaining in his custody, but due to his mismanagement and misappropriation, the business foundered and ultimately when the Defendant approached the Plaintiff at Cuttack for advancement of further contribution the request was turned down by the Plaintiff. The firm was dissolved on that day and the Defendant also agreed to render accounts, but since he did not comply with the same, the suit was filed.

(2.) THE Defendant in his written statement admitted the partnership but contended that there was no dissolution of the same and that there had never been any demand for rendition of accounts. It was pleaded that there was a talk of arbitration of the disputes between the parties and on such plea prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Defendant also filed the petition under Order 14 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure to decide the question of jurisdiction of the court at Cuttack to entertain the suit since it was his case that the business was carried on at Dhenkanal, the accounts were liable to be rendered only there and could not be asked for to be rendered at Cuttack through the suit.

(3.) THE approach of the learned Munsif, is misdirected. There is no dispute between the parties regarding execution of the partnership deed and hence whether the partnership was entered into at Cuttack or at Dhankanal is not relevant. The cause of action for the suit was demand for accounts and non -rendering of the same by the Defendant. Whether the Partnership, as alleged in the plaint, was dissolved in December 1976 or not is also not crucial to the question since even without dissolution of the partnership, a suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable. The question is as to where the suit for rendition of accounts lies.