MOHD SHABAN TELI Vs. BASHIR AHMAD MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts pending in the court of sub Judge, sopore, two persons namely Mohd Shaban and Mohi -ud -Din Teli sought the permission of the court to be impleded as defendants vide their application dated 17 -1 -1976. The court framed an issue in this regard on 12 -10 -1976. The plaintiffs counsel therein vide an application dt. 16 -12 -1977 prayed that the issue raised as to the joining of the above the said two persons as defendants would be an exercise in futility and as such the issue be struck down and the application be considered under the provisions of such rule (2) of rule 10 of Order 1 C. P. C, This was agreed to by the learned Sub Judge and vide his order dt. 8 -7 -1978 dismissed the application of the said persons for arraying them as party in the suit. Against this order, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE suit has been filed by Sh. Malik Ahmad one the basis of a partnership Deed executed by him with one Abdul Ahad Teli. There is no third party mentioned in the partnership agreement.

(3.) ACCORDING to the terms of the partnership deed amongst other things it is provided that the capital for business of the partnership shall be provided by Bashir Ahmad Malik while the entire work of the partnership business shall be carried out by the other party to the partnership agreement i.e. Abdul Ahad Teli. It appears that Abdul Ahad Teli passed away during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. The case of the two persons namely, Mohd. Shaban and Mohi -ud -Din Teli was that in fact it were they who were running the business and were in possession of the business concern and that it was, therefore necessary that they should be made party to the suit because of the fact that from the very beginning of the partnership between Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Ahad Teli they were running the business and as such have an interest in the disposed of the suit and, therefore payed to be made party in the suit. The learned Sub -Judge has rejected the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has held that the partnership was only between the parties to the suit and as much no other person could be made a party to the suit whose name did not appear in the partnership deed.