RAJ KUMAR Vs. ANIL MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 13966 -CII -2014

(2.) APPLICATION is allowed.

(3.) THE averments made in the plaint are that late Ram Dass and Hira Lal were father and son, who started their business in the name and style of M/s. Ram Dass Hira Lal, SCO No. 208, Sector 36 -D, Chandigarh and were running two firms namely, of M/s. Ram Dass Hira Lal, SCO No. 208, Sector 36 -D, Chandigarh and of M/s. Ram Dass Hira Lal, SCO No. 3027, Sector 22D, Chandigarh. Ram Dass died in 1989 and Hira Lal died in 22.4.1990. The partnership deed was executed on 13.6.1990 in which there were three partners namely, Ramesh Chander, Raj Kumar and Chand Rani. The positive case of the plaintiffs, who happens to be the wife and sons of Hira Lal is that SCO No. 328, Sector 36 -D, Chandigarh was allotted in the name of the firm M/s. Ram Dass Hira Lal. It is alleged that the said SCO was let out and is in possession of the tenants. The plaintiffs requested defendants No. 1 and 2 to give complete accounts including that all the balance -sheet of SCO in question but they always avoided. It is also averred that the said SCO is a joint property of the parties as it has been allotted in the name of the firm and the plaintiffs are the natural successors of Ram Dass and Hira Lal. On this premise, the plaintiffs prayed for decree for partition, possession, rendition of account with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from receiving rent from the tenants. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 2, it is averred that the property in dispute was allotted in the name of the firm having three partners, namely, Ramesh Chander, Raj Kumar and Chand Rani. At the stage of plaintiffs' evidence, the defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that as per the prayer made in the suit they are required to affix ad valorem Court fee. The application was hotly contested by the plaintiffs and has ultimately been decided by the impugned order.