RAMESH KUMAR BHALOTIA Vs. LALIT KUMAR BHALOTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the petitioner against the order dated 8-6-2000 passed by Munsif, Jamui in Title Suit No. 49 of 1998 rejecting his objection regarding the maintainability of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs opposite party on 19-4-1996 filed Administrative Suit No. 24 of 1996 claiming that they and the defendant petitioner are own brothers and they deal in Kerosene oil business in the name and style of M/s. National Agencies at Jamui. The Kerosene oil business was a Joint family business and looked after by his father as a karta and after his death, the defendant petitioner was looking after the same. In 1989, a partnership deed was created between them which was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Later on the defendant - petitioner started acting dishonestly and accordingly the said suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant being partners of M/s. National Agencies are entitled to 1/3rd share each in profits and loss and defendant may be directed to render account of the said firm and necessary direction may be issued for rendition of the account and for proper administration of the firm and after adjudication decree for the amount of the plaintiffs share be passed against the defendant and he may be permanently restrained from removing the materials or from selling any of the assets. While the said suit was pending, the present suit Title Suit No. 49 of 1998 was filed on 17-8-1998, out of which this civil revision arises, for declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendant being partners of M/s. National Agencies are entitled to 1/3rd share and the defendant may be directed to wind up the firm and to render the account of the said firm and necessary order may be passed by the Court to the defendant for dissolution of the firm and for rendition of account and for proper administration of the business till the dissolution of firm is completed and on adjudication, if any amount is found due, decree for the same may be passed and the defendant may be permanently restrained from removing the materials or from selling any of the assets of the partnership business.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement in the aforesaid Administrative suit raising various objections including maintainability of the suit under S. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Munsif considered the matter and by order dated 7-5-1999 held that the suit was barred under S. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act. The plaintiff Opposite Party filed revision application before this Court which was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition under order XIV, Rule 2 of the Civil Produce Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in Title Suit No. 49 of 1998 to decide the questions of maintainability of the suit. According to him, the suit was not maintainable on three grounds, namely, the suit was barred by principles of res judicata. It was also barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code and under S. 69 of the Act. The Court below decided that aforesaid three grounds as preliminary issues and by the impugned order held that none of the objection raised by the defendant petitioner was sustainable and accordingly held that the suit is maintainable.