MATHURALAL Vs. CHIRANJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the Civil Judge Banswara dated 21-11-55 dismissing a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in which a preliminary decree had been passed on the application of the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 (i) C. P. C. and against his subsequent order dated 18-6-56 refusing to review his earlier order.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this application are these. Chiranji Lal respondent No. 1 instituted a suit tor dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the four applicants Mathuralal, Nanalal, Manaklal and Babulal and the remaining three respondents Maganlal, Karulal and Sujanmal on 28-1-53 in the court of the Civil Judge Banswara. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 16-8-54. Only Maganlal defendant appealed against this decree. The appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 18-4-55. Maganial filed a second appeal in the High Court which was withdrawn by him on 26-4-56 and was dismissed as having been withdrawn.

(3.) UNDER the preliminary decree a lawyer was appointed as commissioner to go into the accounts and submit a report in order to enable the court to pass a final decree. On 22-2-55 this commissioner submitted a report expressing his inability to arrive at a definite finding with regard to the matters referred to him on account of his lack of experience of accounting. On 20-4-55 the plaintiff and the defendants filed an application praying that four persons named therein be appointed as arbitrators to decide the remaining disputes. On this application the learned Civil Judge referred the case to these four arbitrators. One of these arbitrators Shri Heera Lal had to go away in connection with the treatment of his wife. The remaining arbitrators were unable to act in his absence. On 1-10-55 the learned Civil Judge accordingly passed an order that the parties should either nominate another arbitrator in place of Shri Heera Lal or show cause why the reference should not be superseded and the case disposed of by the court. 21st October 1955 was fixed as the next date of hearing. On 21-10-55 the learned counsel for the parties stated that they had not been able to take instructions from their clients and prayed for an adjournment. The court thereupon fixed 28-11-55 as the next date in the case.