Skip to content


Ramsingh Vs. Somendra Kumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Application No. 654 of 1969
Judge
Reported in1971WLN683
AppellantRamsingh
RespondentSomendra Kumar
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
partnership - accounts books in possession not produced inspite of several opportunities--held, presumption be drawn against him.;if a partner has books or accounts in his possession, and he will not produce them an account may, nevertheless be arrived at by presuming everything against him. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of..........him. no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. the defendant however did not produce the account books of the partnership firm before the commissioner despite several opportunities. the commissioner then submitted a report to the learned district judge. at the instance of the plaintiff the learned district judge did not send the case to the commissioner. a date was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. on 14-8-69 the plaintiff examined one witness shankar lal and closed his evidence. the defendant sought an opportunity of producing his evidence and the court fixed 9-9-69 for his evidence.3. against the above order the present revision application has been filed. it is contended that the defendant cannot now be given any opportunity of producing evidence as he did.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, C.J.

1. This is a revision application by the Plaintiff against an order of the District Judge Bhilwara, passed in proceedings for thp preparation of a final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

2. Under the preliminary decree a commissioner was appointed to take accounts and the defendant was directed to produce the accounts of the partnership firm before him. No appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. The defendant however did not produce the account books of the partnership firm before the commissioner despite several opportunities. The commissioner then submitted a report to the learned District Judge. At the instance of the plaintiff the learned District Judge did not send the case to the commissioner. A date was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. On 14-8-69 the plaintiff examined one witness Shankar Lal and closed his evidence. The defendant sought an opportunity of producing his evidence and the court fixed 9-9-69 for his evidence.

3. Against the above order the present revision application has been filed. It is contended that the defendant cannot now be given any opportunity of producing evidence as he did net produce the account books of the partnership either before the commissioner or before the court.

4. I have heard the earned Counsel for the parties and I am satisfied that no opportunity of producing evidence can now be given to the defendant. In Lindley on Partnership, Twelfth Edition at page 550 the following consequence of non-production of account books is stated:

If a partner has books or accounts in his possession, and he will not produce them, an account may, nevertheless be arrived at by presuming everything against him. Thus in a case there an account was directed at the suit of the representatives of a deceased partner against the surviving partner, and the latter would not produce the books necessary to enable the Master to take the accounts, the Master estimated the net profits at Pound 10 percent. On the capital employed and the court, on exceptions to his report confirmed it, adding that if he had set the net profits down at Pound 20 percent his report would have been equally confirmed.

I accordingly allow the revision application with costs and set aside the order of the trial court.

5. Let the record be returned to the trial court forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //