Law: Partnership Act, 1932

Section: 9,19,35

Partnership Act (IX of 1932)--- ----Ss. 9, 35 & 19---Partnership---Suit for rendition of accounts---Burden of proof---Existence of partnership---Scope---In order to apply the enabling provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 in a suit for rendition of accounts, it was essential for plaintiff to prove that a partnership firm existed and such firm was engaged in any trade or business or had gained profit or incurred loss---Onus to prove such facts lay on the plaintiff in order to prove that the firm was practically performing business. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, J.--- The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2014 of learned Additional District Judge Lakki Marwat in Civil Appeal No. 23/13 of 2011 and also against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2011 of Civil Judge-I Lakki Marwat, in Suit No. 252/1 of 2006/2008, whereby the suit as well as appeal of petitioner/plaintiff were dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for dissolution of partnership agreement registered in 1984 regarding a brick kiln which was built jointly by the plaintiff, proforma defendants and legal heirs of defendants Nos.1 and 2; that Hamidullah without any notice had sold out the shares of petitioner/plaintiff to defendants Nos.3 to 6. A decree for rendition of account was also sought to the effect that defendants are liable to pay Rs.675000/-, the shares of plaintiff and proforma respondents Nos.7 and 8 along with their profit for the last four years amounting to Rs.15,60,000/- because Hamidullah Managing Director, the predecessor of defendants Nos.1 and 2 sold their shares to defendants Nos. 3 to 6 for Rs.9,00,000/- while defendants Nos.3 and 6 are running the business for the last four years without payment of a single penny to petitioner/plaintiff. Perpetual/mandatory injunction was also sought to the effect that defendants Nos.3 to 6 be restrained from running the brick-kiln, till payment of share and profit to the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. Respondents/defendants resisted the suit by submitting their written statement raising various…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492