Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Mistuni Banerjee Nee Khan vs Ashit Kumar Khan & Ors on 11 May, 2012
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
1 80 11.5.12
C.O. 1113 of 2012 jb.
Smt. Mistuni Banerjee nee Khan Vs. Ashit Kumar Khan & Ors.
Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Mr. Chandradoy Roy .... For the Petitioner Mr. Buddhadeb Ghosal, Mr. Udayan Dutta .... For the Opposite Party nos. 1 and 2 The daughter of the deceased partner filed a suit in the year 1999 for declaration of her right, title and interest in the business of the partnership firm which are presently claimed to be under the control of the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3. In the suit by way of interrogatories an application was filed in relation to some accounts of the partnership firm. The daughter claims that at least she is entitled to the profit of the partnership business and accordingly accounts have become relevant. The said prayer was however, turned down by the impugned order dated 20th January, 2012.
The said interrogatories are in relation to maintenance of accounts of the partnership firm for the period 1983-93. The said prayer was rejected on the ground that the interrogatories asked for by the plaintiff in title suit no. 156/99 are not the subject matter of the said 2 suit. It appears that the Court has failed to appreciate the frame of the suit and the various reliefs claimed in the plaint. It cannot be doubted that there is also a claim for accounts. This aspect has been lost sight of by the trial Judge. Moreover it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased partner and she is entitled to claim her share in the business of the partnership unless there are strong rebuttable evidence to deny such claim. It is true that the said application was filed after 13 years of the filing of the suit and there is no plausible explanation for such delay, but the fact remains that the trial is yet to commence and no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the accounts are available and the said partnership firm has been filing balance sheets regularly since 1983. It is fairly submitted that such balance sheets would be made available to the plaintiffs for the aforesaid period.
In view of such submission and having regard to the frame of the suit, the order under challenge is set aside only with respect to the interrogatories. The opposite parties shall make available the balance sheets for the relevant period within one month from date.
It is however, submitted by the opposite parties that after the death of Dilip Kumar Khan his wife Manju Khan is not only receiving 25% share in the partnership business on her own but also the share of her deceased husband. But this issue is irrelevant for the present purpose.
3Mr. Bhattacharyya in his usual fairness submits that he has not challenged the other part of the order by which time was extended to comply with the earlier order for payment.
In view thereof, this revisional application succeeds in part.
This order is restricted to the interrogatories only.
The application thus stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Let photostat plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
( Soumen Sen, J. )