Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta And Another vs L. N. Malik And Others on 5 December, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 5510 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 5510 of 2012
Date of Decision : December 05, 2012
Geeta and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
L. N. Malik and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vimal Goel, Advocate
and Mr. Alok Kumar Jain, Advocate
for respondent no. 1.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Aggrieved by order dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order. By the said order, trial court has allowed application Annexure P-2 moved by respondent no.1 - L. N. Malik for becoming party to the suit, which has C. R. No. 5510 of 2012 2 been instituted by plaintiffs/petitioners against proforma respondents no.2 and 3 as contesting defendant no.1 and as proforma defendant no.2 respectively, for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.11.2010 allegedly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiffs and proforma defendant no.2.
Admittedly, the suit land belonged to partnership firm M/s Gopal Farms, in which defendant no.1 and others were partners. Respondent no.1 was also partner in the said firm. Case of the plaintiffs is that on the death of two partners of the firm i.e. Gopal Narain Wahi on 23.12.2003 and Narender Kumar Jain on 19.02.2001, the firm stood dissolved and its partners including legal representatives of the deceased partners became individual owners of the land of the partnership firm to the extent of 1/9th share each and accordingly, defendant no.1 agreed to sell his 1/9th share in the land to plaintiffs and proforma defendant no. 2.
Respondent no.1, in his application, alleged that dissolution of the firm has not taken place and rendering of accounts thereof is still awaited and as per arbitration clause in the partnership deed, respondent no.1 had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Receiver in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, but the same was rejected on technical grounds. Accordingly, respondent no.1 claimed to be necessary and proper party to the suit being C. R. No. 5510 of 2012 3 partner in the said firm.
Plaintiffs, by filing reply Annexure P-3, resisted the application and reiterated the version pleaded in the plaint Annexure P-1.
Learned trial court, vide order Annexure P-4, has allowed application moved by respondent no.1 and has ordered his impleadment as party to the suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective versions noticed herein before.
I have carefully considered the matter.
It is undisputed that two of the partners of the partnership firm have since died. Consequently, in view of Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932, the firm stood dissolved automatically on death of the first partner. However, merely on said dissolution of the partnership firm, the partners and legal heirs of the deceased partners did not automatically become owners of the suit land to the extent of 1/9th share each because the suit land was property of the partnership firm. The partners could become individual owners thereof only on settling the accounts of the dissolved firm. However, counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs could not even refer to a plea in C. R. No. 5510 of 2012 4 the plaint to the effect that accounts of the dissolved partnership firm were ever settled by the erstwhile partners and legal representatives of deceased partners thereof. Consequently, merely on dissolution of the firm due to death of its two partners, the other partners and legal heirs of deceased partners did not automatically acquire ownership of 1/9th share each in the land, which was admittedly property of the partnership firm. On the other hand, account of assets and liability of the dissolved partnership firm have to be settled in accordance with Sections 48 to 55 of the Act. This has not taken place. In these circumstances, respondent no.1, who was admittedly partner of the dissolved partnership firm, is certainly necessary and proper party to the instant suit, which relates to the property of the said partnership firm.
In the aforesaid circumstances, respondent no.1 has been rightly ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit by the trial court. There is, therefore, no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein before shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit. C. R. No. 5510 of 2012 5
December 05, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE