AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.
The revision is directed against the order dated 28.1.1997 passed on the application of the defendants moved u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Civil Suit No. 56-A/1996.
The application was founded on the fact that on account of difficulties in running the partnership firm the defendants dissolved the firm known as "GUNGHAT SARI CENTRE", in view of this the suit is rendered infructuous and deserves to be rejected.
The plaintiff in reply submitted that the defendants have disobeyed the order of the Court and the plaintiff's right to continue as member of dissolved partnership firm continues and as such the application deserves to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that he did not state this fact before the Court below that on account of being member of the dissolved partnership firm he has got the right to continue. His submission was that if defendants had dissolved any firm of which the plaintiff was not a member he has nothing to do with such firm. It is not the question here for consideration. The short question for consideration is whether on the statement of the defendants regarding dissolution of the partnership firm the same survives for winding up proceedings and the Court found that the firm survives. In law the words "dissolution" and "winding up" have different concepts. The date of coming to a close of the entire partnership business, including the realisation of the outstanding, is not the criterion for fixing the time of dissolution. Realisation of the assets is a part of the winding up and not of dissolution unless the partnership either agreed expressly or by co-terminus with the realisation of all its debts and the payment of its liabilities. Where partners have has been entered into for a definite term the firm is dissolved on the expiry of that period, although u/s 47 of the Partnership Act. After the dissolution of the firm, the authority of each partner to bind the firm and the other mutual rights and obligations of the partners continue, notwithstanding the dissolution, so far as may be necessary to wind up the affairs of the firm and to complete transactions begun but unfinished at the time of dissolution.
It is settled principle of law that the revision against an order passed on an application u/s 151 of CPC could be entertained only in the exceptional circumstances, and not in a routine manner.
So far as this revision in concerned, I find no jurisdictional error so to warrant interference by this Court with the impugned order. The revision is dismissed.