SUKHANAND GURUMUKHRAI Vs. BHIMRAJ RPOTDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an originating summons for reliefs usual in a partnership action. The defendant denies the partnership, and it is contended on his behalf that the question as to the existence of the partnership is not one that can he disposed of on an originating summons. The correspondence annexed to the written statement shows that the plaintiff was aware at the date at the institution of the suit that the defendant had denied the partnership. For the plaintiff it is contended that the amendment of the rule as to originating summons in partnership oases indicates an intention that such a question can now be determined by originating summons.

(2.) The old Rule 213 was as follows: When the existence of the partnership or the right to, or the fact of the dissolution thereof, is not in dispute, any partner in a firm or his representatives may take out an originating summons returnable before the Judge sitting in Chambers against his partners, or former partners, or their representatives (if any) for the purpose of having the partnership dissolved (if it be still subsisting) and for the purpose of taking the accounts of, and g winding up, such partnership.

(3.) This rule was amended in January 1919, and it now appears among the High Court Rules as Rule 215. It is as follows: Any partner in a firm or his representatives may take out an originating summons returnable before the Judge sitting in Chambers against his partners, or former partners, or their representatives (if any) for the purpose of having the partnership dissolved (if it be still subsisting; and for the purpose of taking the accounts of, and winding up, such partnership and for the determination of any question arising in such partnership whether to be dissolved or wound up or not.