MANGLA RAM Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent No.1 Paras Ram alleged in the plaint that a parthership was formed between him and the defendants -Bhoor Chand and others in the month of Baisahk, Samwat 2013 for plying a motor bus RJQ 164 on Balotra -Sanchore route. It was prayed that a decree for dissolution of pantnershsp and rendition of accounts be granted.

(3.) WHEN the case went back to the trial court for taking additional evidence, the defendant filed an application for amendment of the preliminary decree under Section 152,C.P.C., on 19.8.1968. By this application it was prayed that the proceedings before the Commissioner for taking accounts be declared void and without jurisdiction as the partnership was void ab initio under Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the alternative it was also prayed that the preliminary decree be amended so as to incorporate in it the direction regarding taking of accounts and appointment of the Commissioner for that purpose. This application was opposed by defendent No. 1 Bhoor Chand. The learned Civil Judge, Balotra by his order dated 17.9.1968 held that there was a clerical mistake in the decree which ought to have been prepared in consonance with the judgment and since the relief granted in the judgment for taking of accounts and appointment of the Commissioner had not been incorporated in the decree, the decree may be amended so as to bring it in line with the judgment. In persuance of this order the decree was amended so as to add the following paragraph in it. Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta is appointed as Commissioner to go into the accounts. His fee is fixed at Rs. 55 - -tentatively. Shri Gupta is said to be in possession of the account books of the firm. He is directed to submit his report within a month after examining the accounts in presence of the parties.