LAKSHMILAL Vs. SHRI BHAGWATSINGH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has come up before the Full Bench of this Court, as there was a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of the old Rajasthan High Court, and under sec. 22 (2) (b) of the United State of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1948, the case was referred by the learned Judges to a Full Bench. The case had been pending before the old Rajasthan High Court, and has come by transfer to this Court under sec. 49 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance (No. XV of 1949 ).

(2.) THE relevant facts are that there was a firm Ummaid Mal Dharam Chand carrying on money lending and other business at Udaipur, in which there were four partners, viz. , Roshanlal, Lakshmilal, Fatehlal and Omkarlal. THE first two had one-third share each and the last two had the remaining to share. . Disputes having arisen among the partners, they approached His Highness the Maharana of Udaipur for dissolution of partnership and winding up of its affairs. By an order dated Sawan Sud 9, Samwat 1993, four officers viz , Shri Jagannath Singh Mehta, Shri Balwant Singh Kothari, Shri Jawan Singh Ranawat, and Shri Dal Chand Agarwal, were appointed to settle the matter between the parties. Some of these officers were unable to act, and the matter was finally referred to Shri Jawan Singh Ranawat, Shri Gamer Singh, Shri Jagannath Singh Mehta, and Shri Moti Lal Bohara. THEse gentlemen, however, thought it proper to take an agreement from the parties that they would agree to whatever might be decided by these gentlemen as arbitrators. THE arbitrators gave a preliminary award on 22. 12. 1938, in which various objections of the parties were decided, and they submitted their opinion to the Mehkma Khas with a recommendation that three lots be made of the assets in accordance with the award, and as regards the liabilities, each of the partners should undertake to pay to such of the creditors as were related to him. THE arbitrators submitted their report to the Mehkma Khas of Mewar where the parties were directed to produce agreed lists of lots; but as the parties could not agree, the matter was referred again to His Highness who ordered Mehkma Khas to re-submit the papers with their opinion. THEreafter, four lists were prepared. Three of these lists related to the assets of the firm for distribution between the partners. THE fourth list contained the detail of the liabilities, and certain assets were reserved in it, which after realization, were to be utilised towards satisfaction of the liabilities. This list is known as list A, and the relevant recommendation, when translated, is as follows : - "our opinion with respect to list A is that because various persons had deposited amounts with the partnership firm, and if any partner does not repay the amount it would be contrary to the best tradition of Sahukars, therefore, it seems proper and convenient that the three partners should clear off the accounts of Lenden according to the list, and whatever may be left in balance may be distributed between the partners according to thier shares. " THE Mehkma Khas recommended on the 3rd of May, 1940, that if their report was acceptable to His Highness, Shri Jawan Singh Ranawat and Shri Moti Lal Bohara be directed to enforce the recommendations. THE aforesaid two gentlemen were appointed Commissioners to carry out the recommendations of the Mehkma Khas. Some time afterwards, Shri Bhagwat Singh Mehta and Shri Keshri Singh Ranawat were appointed Commissioners in place 'of the previous officers. THEse Commissioners proceeded to realize the assets reserved in list A, and to pay off creditors mentioned in that list: but it was found that the assets reserved, though nominally kept at a figure higher than the debts to be paid actually fetched a loss amount. THE Commissioners accordingly passed an order on the 19th of June, 1946, that as the assets of list A were not sufficient to pay off the creditors in full, each of the partners should produce certain amounts, and if he did not do so, the amounts would be realised by attachment and sale of his property. THE amounts fixed for each party were different, as certain adjustments were made by the Commissioners as became necessary among the partners according to the three lots, which had been approved by the parties and the Mehkma Khas.

(3.) AS to the second objection, the point was taken in the reply by Roshan Lai in para 7" of the additional pleas, but no date of the decision of the revision was mentioned nor was a copy of the judgment filed in this case. One would not be surprised if the High Court of Udaipur declined to interfere under sec, 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the opening words of that section are that "the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court. " The Commissioners, even if they were acting as presiding officers of a Court, were not subordinate to the High Court, as under sec. 6 of Act No. XVII of 1944, an appeal was directed to lie from the order of the Commissioners to the Prime Minister whose decisions were declared to be final. The dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court of Udaipur, while it had no jurisdiction to interfere, cannot be a bar to the present petition.