SUNKARA RATHA DOSS Vs. EPARI KOPILS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit on a pro-note executed by one partner (1st defendant) in favour of another partner (plaintiff), and it has been dismissed by the District Judge on the ground that the partnership is still subsisting and that the debt should be included when the accounts are finally settled. I think he is wrong in his view of the law, for the correct principle has been enunciated in Karri Venkatareddi v. Kollu Narasayya 1 Ind. Cas. 384 : 32 M. 76 at p. 80 : 19 M.L.J. 10 : 4 M.L.T. 456 that if the account sought is in respect of a matter which, though arising out of the partnership business or connected with it, does not involve the general taking of accounts the Court will as a rule give the relief sued for, and will now a--days refuse to interfere only in those oases in which a partial settlement would work injustice to the other partner.

(2.) In the present case the business of the partnership has practically ceased, no transaction having taken place since the settlement of accounts which resulted in the plaint promissory note.

(3.) All that is being done is the collection of outstandings. There can, therefore, be no injustice to 1st defendant in enforcing his liability for the suit amount, for there is nothing more due to him and his share of the stock in trade is in his hands. I, therefore, think that plaintiff is entitled to a decree upon the plaint note. Apart from this view of the case it is questionable whether the 1st defendant can evade his liability under the negotiable instrument unless he can show that it is a nullity.