VIJAY KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. PREM NATH MANGOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against an appellate order passed by learned District Judge, Udhampur.

(2.) A suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of account was filed by one Prem Nath Mangotra against the present petitioners and also against respondent No. 2. A preliminary decree has been passed. The preliminary decree was challenged in the Court of District Judge, Udhampur. This appeal has been dismissed. Now the present revision petition has been preferred. In this petition, the only argument raised is that truck bearing No. JK02D -1449 and scooter bearing No. JK02C -5249 were not the property of the Firm and therefore, these should not have been treated as the property belonging to the Partnership and therefore, a receiver should not have been appointed qua the two vehicles referred to above. This argument was negatived on the ground that one of the partners had taken a stand which suggested that the two vehicles belong to the partnership firm. Taking note of this aspect of the matter, the appellate court found no justification to interfere. The argument which was urged before the appellate court is being urged again. It is stated that as an issue was not framed as to whether the vehicles in question belonged to the partnership, therefore, the resultant finding recorded in the absence of pleading cannot be sustained.

(3.) WITH a view to examine this aspect of the matter it would be apt to mention that the specific stand taken by the plaintiff that the two vehicles belonged to the partnership. When written statement was filed then the stand taken was that infact there did not exist any partnership firm and therefore the question of these two vehicles belonging to the partnership concern would not arise. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the present appellants had not taken a specific stand that the vehicles did not belong to the partnership firm. All that was stated was that as there existed no partnership and therefore, the question as to whether the vehicles belonged to the partnership would not arise. It was rightly concluded that once a finding was recorded that there existed a partnership then the resultant conclusion that the vehicle belonged to the partnership would follow. This is because there was no specific stand taken by the defendant and one of the partners that the vehicles were the personal property or these did not belong to the partnership concern. Therefore to say that the view expressed by the trial court requires interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is an argument which is devoid of merit and same is rejected.