Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs Labh Singh And Ors on 21 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149001
2023:PHHC:149001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109 RSA-2458-2018(O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.11.2023
Pardeep Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Labh Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Neha, Advocate for the appellant.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (oral)
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to the
judgments and decrees dated 31.01.2013 and 21.07.2017 passed by the
Courts below, whereby the suit for dissolution of firm i.e. respondent
No.2-defendant No.1 (hereinafter the parties shall be referred as per
their status given in the plaint), constituted vide partnership deed dated
27.11.2001 and also for settlement/rendition of accounts thereof, stands
decreed, besides passing the restraint order against defendant No.2
from removing the assets of defendant No.1.
2. Briefly stating, claiming themselves to be partners of a
partnership firm constituted vide partnership deed dated 27.11.2001,
the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 3, filed a suit with following prayer:
"(A) Suit for dissolution of firm defendant no.1 constituted
vide partnership deed dt.27.11.2001 and for
settlement/rendition of accounts after discharging the
liabilities of the firm defendant no.1 and for distribution
of the remaining amount and assets of the firm between
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149001
109 RSA-2458-2018(O&M) 2023:PHHC:149001
the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 according the shares
mentioned in the partnership deed dt.27.11.2001; AND
(B) Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the
defendants no.2 from removing or using any assets of the
firm defendant no.1 and further restraining defendant
no.2 from carrying on a business of firm defendant no.1
until all the affairs of the firm defendant no.1 have been
completely wound up or any other relief.".
3. Upon notice, the suit was opposed at the instance of
appellant-defendant No.2 while submitting that the firm stood
dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2005, which though signed
by plaintiff No.1/respondent No.3, but was never signed by plaintiff
No.2-respondent No.1, however, having admitted the dissolution deed.
The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2013 decreed the
suit filed at the instance of plaintiffs, while ignoring dissolution deed
dated 31.03.2005 on the ground that the same was not signed by all the
partners, especially plaintiff No.2.
4. Aggrieved thereof, appellant-defendant No.2 filed first
appeal, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
21.07.2017 passed by the First Appellate Court.
5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submits that the dissolution deed dated 31.03.2005 (Ex. D4) was
entered into between the parties and the terms thereof were even
accepted and thus, the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff-respondent
Nos.1 and 3 was liable to be dismissed. He further submits that plaintiff
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149001
109 RSA-2458-2018(O&M) 2023:PHHC:149001
No.1 was having no cause of action for filing the suit, he having signed
the dissolution deed dated 31.03.2005.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone
through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the
submission made on behalf of appellant-defendant No.2.
7. There was no dispute between the parties as regards the
existence of the partnership firm consisting of plaintiffs as well as
defendant No.2, be its partners, in terms of partnership deed dated
27.11.2001. Once, the dissolution deed dated 31.03.2005, as set up by
defendant No.2, was never signed by all the partners, especially in the
present case by plaintiff No.2, thus, the document dated 31.03.2005 did
not result into dissolution of partnership firm created vide partnership
deed dated 27.11.2001. Mere signatures of plaintiff No.1 over the
document dated 31.03.2005 could not be termed to be resulting into
acceptance of the dissolution of firm by plaintiff No.2, who never
signed the same.
8. Resultantly finding no merits in the present appeal, there
being no illegality and perversity with findings recorded by the Courts
below in the judgments dated 31.01.2013 and 21.07.2017, the same is
hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
21.11.2023 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149001
3 of 3
