Anant vs Mahadeo and another

Nigam, J.C.

Mahadeo filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts against Suraj Bahadur (Suit No. 7 of 1951) in the Court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Kekri. Anant filed an application that he be made a party. This application was filed on 4-9-1951. The learned Sub-Judge rejected this application and against that order Anant has come up in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

It appears that Anant was previously a partner in the same firm. He gave up his connection with this firm on 18-5-1949 and then it was settled between them that if the loss, then incurred by the partnership was later converted into the substantial profit, he would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The learned counsel for Anant has urged that his presence in the suit is necessary so that the parties may not collude and deprive him of his share of the assets by showing that the partnership had even after 18-5-1949 incurred a loss. The learned counsel agrees that he could file a claim for his amount even if he is not permitted to be arrayed as a party in the present suit. But that would mean multiplicity of suits. I am afraid the present suit is for dissolution of partnership and we cannot enter into the question whether the accounts have been properly maintained or not and whether there has been any attempt to defraud Anant. An enquiry into Anant''s claim would make the enquiry Unnecessarily wide. I am, therefore, of opinion that Anant is not a necessary party to the suit as framed and that it is not convenient to let him settle his dispute in the same suit.

No other point has been urged before me.

I, therefore, see no force in this revision application and dismiss it with costs.