| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLD 3190 = 1980 CLC 1283 |
Lahore High Court
First Appeal from Original Order No. 199 of 1977, heard on 15th December, 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J
Malik Muhammad Ishaque v. Messrs Erose Theatre P L D 1977 S C 109 ; Queen v. Leatham 1901 A C 495 and Halsbury's Laws of England , 204 Edn., Vol. 24, para. 903 ref. Allah Wasaya Malik for Appellant. Mohd. Akram Khawaja for
Respondent No. 1 Nemo for the Remaining
Respondents.
First Appeal from Original Order No. 199 of 1977, heard on 15th December, 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J
Malik Muhammad Ishaque v. Messrs Erose Theatre P L D 1977 S C 109 ; Queen v. Leatham 1901 A C 495 and Halsbury's Laws of England , 204 Edn., Vol. 24, para. 903 ref. Allah Wasaya Malik for Appellant. Mohd. Akram Khawaja for
Respondent No. 1 Nemo for the Remaining
Respondents.
ABDUL KARIM--Appellant/Plaintiff
VERSUS
IQBAL-UR-REHMAN AND 5 OTHERS--Respondents
Law: Partnership Act (IX of 1932)
Section: 29
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. I, r. 10
(a) Partnership Act (IX of 1932) S. 29---Rendition of accounts, suit for-Suit lies only when special relationship exists-Existence of fiduciary relationship between plain tiff and defendant and latter's obligation to render accounts-Sine qua non for maintainability of such suit-Mutual confidence and trust, confined in one another by partners - Foundation of partnership- Partner, held, has no right to foist outsider on firm by alienation of share in his favour, without consent of other partners Assignee a stranger to other partners-Has no footing in firm Assignor by transferring his share-Does not stand absolved of his statutory responsibility as partner. (b) Partnership Act (IX of 1932) S. 29 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10-- Assignee's right of interference - Assignee during continuance of partnership-Has no right to interfere in conduct of business or to inspect account books of firm or to sue for accounts but on dissolution of firm entitled to receive share of assets of transferor and to have accounts taken from date of dissolution for ascertaining such share Respondent' not standing in such relation-Respondent merely because he managed firm's business or for being in possession of part nership property---Held, could not be requited to render accounts Respondent's presence being helpful for effectual and complete adjudication of appellant's suit-Respondent, held, proper party in circumstances of case. Date of hearing :il5th December, 1979. JUDGMENT The cause out of which this appeal has arisen was commenced by the appellant, by filing a suit against the respondents for dissolution of partner ship and rendition of accounts. The parties are doing motor transport business and…