GIANI RAM Vs. SANSAR SINGH LAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Sansar Singh and three others (plaintiffs-respondents) filed the present suit against Giani Ram and two others (defendants-petitioners) alleging that the parties formed a partnership firm and took on lease the country-liquor vend at village Narnaund for the year 1981-82 for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000. The defendants turned dishonest, refused to accept the plaintiffs as the partners and began running the liquor vend from Ist April, 1981, to the plaintiffs' exclusion. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for a permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that the parties having formed a partnership firm for carrying on the above-said business, the defendants have no right to restrain the plaintiffs from participation in the working of the said firm and till the decision of the suit or the settlement of the dispute by an arbitrator, the defendants be restrained from carrying on the above-said business. The plaintiffs also applied under Order 39, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a temporary injunction. The trial Court on 3rd April, 1981 passed an interim order restraining the defendants from carrying on the liquor business in question without the participation of the plaintiffs. In response to notice, the defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim in all respects. After hearing the parties, it confirmed the said injunction on 10th April, 1981.

(2.) In the appeal preferred by the defendants, the learned District Judge, upon a consideration of the material on record, rejected the defendants' plea that the plaintiffs got their names entered in the licence, issued by the authorities for running the liquor vend, by fraud. It was further held that the participation of the plaintiffs as also the defendants in the auction of the vend was compatible with the plaintiffs' plea that before the auction the parties had entered into a contract to carry on the business of the liquor vend jointly. Thus the defendants' plea denying the alleged contract was rejected especially on the ground that the names of the four plaintiffs, find a specific mention, along with the three defendants, in the licence above-said. The defendants' objection to the formation of the partnership on the ground that the plaintiffs did not give complete details of the transaction, in that, even the name of the firm did not find mention in the plaint, too did not find favour with the learned District Judge. Their appeal having been dismissed, the defendants have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Having regard to the material on record, at this stage of the case, no valid ground has been made out by the defendants to interfere, especially in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, with the prima facie findings of the learned District Judge. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners contended that the partnership firm being not admittedly registered, sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the :Partnership Act bars the present suit. Support to the contention was sought by referring to the pleas in the plaint which may be summed up thus :-