BHANU SOOD Vs. JEETENDERA MALHOTRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant, who was one of the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to "the plaintiff") , laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 29.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 68-S/13 of 2004/99, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 10.11.1998, passed by the learned Senior sub Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., was dismissed and the findings of the learned Trial Court, whereby Civil Suit No. 199/1 of 1997 of 1993 was dismissed, were upheld.

(2.) The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:

(3.) The defendants, by way of filing written statement, contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiffs. They raised preliminary objections, viz., maintainability, estoppel, jurisdiction and cause of action. On merits, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs have concealed material facts with ulterior motive, as the parties to the suit were unregistered partners of unregistered firm, so the suit is not maintainable under Section 69 of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") . As per the defendants, the accounts of the firm were being managed and maintained properly by defendants No. 1 and 2 and plaintiff No. The plaintiffs conduct became untrustworthy, when the defendants asked about the irregularities. Thus, the relations between the parties became strained and despite repeated requests the plaintiffs did not get the accounts audited by the Chartered Accountant. The dissolution of firm by the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants and it was contended that due to continuous loss and unavailability of funds the firm could not function. Due to the mala fide acts, deeds and conduct of the plaintiffs, the partnership firm suffered huge loss. As per the defendants, true statement of accounts was submitted to them, however, they stayed away and signed the record with ulterior motive, as such they are liable to pay their share of loss. The defendants, by filing a counter claim, sought recovery of the amount of loss suffered by them form during the period 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992- 93 to the extent of '35, 000/-, '35, 000/- and '75, 000/-, respectively. Lastly, the defendants contended that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed.