| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 3107 = 1973 SLD 3107 = 1973 PLD 468 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Civil Revision Application No. 176 of 1968, decided on 12th March 1973.
Presented By: Dorab Patel, J
Haji Dost Mohammad and another v. Mohandas Lalchand and another A I R 1926 Sind 81 not fol. Monmohan Panday and others v. Bindhu Bhusan Ray Choudhry and others A I R 1919 Cal. 160 ref. Munir, Attorney and Diwan Bashir Ahmed for Appellant. K. A. Ghani for
Respondents. Naimuddin: Amicus curiae.
Civil Revision Application No. 176 of 1968, decided on 12th March 1973.
Presented By: Dorab Patel, J
Haji Dost Mohammad and another v. Mohandas Lalchand and another A I R 1926 Sind 81 not fol. Monmohan Panday and others v. Bindhu Bhusan Ray Choudhry and others A I R 1919 Cal. 160 ref. Munir, Attorney and Diwan Bashir Ahmed for Appellant. K. A. Ghani for
Respondents. Naimuddin: Amicus curiae.
MESSRS Chaudhry ALLAH BUX MOULA BUX--Defendants--Applicants
VERSUS
MESSRS AIJAZ MOULA BUX AND ANOTHER Plaintiff's--Respondents
Law: Partnership Act (IX of 1932)
Section: 69(3),(1), (2), 14
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)
Section: 45, 47
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. XXX, a. 4
(a) Partnership Act (IX of 1932); S. 69(3), cl. (a) read with sub sections (1) & (2)---Firm, suit by----Object of cl. (a) to remove disabilities imposed by subsections (1) & (2) of S. 3 with regard to, dissolved firms-Bar imposed by S. 69 not applicable to dissolved firms- Suit for accounts by a dissolved firm even though unregister ed-Falls within 2nd part of cl. (a) and not hit by subsections (1) & (2) of S. 69---[A. T. Ponnappa chettiar and others v. Hodappa Chettiar and others A I R 1945 Mad. 146 held overruled. The bar of section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 was nor applicable to a dissolved firm. The object of clause (a) is to remove with regard to dissolved firms the disabilities imposed by subsections (1) and (2). A. T. Ponnappa Chettiar and others v. Bodappa Chettiar and others A I R 1945 Mad. 146 held overruled. Appaya Nijligappa Hattargi and another v. Subrao Babaji Tell and another A I R 1938 Bom. 108; Shanmugha Mudaliar v. P. V. Rathina Mudaliar and another A I R 1948 Mad. 187; Jhandu Mal and others v. Rulia Ram A I R 1937 Lah. 633; Lala Ram Kumar v. Kishori Lal and others A I R 1946 All. 259 and Sohanlaf Pachisia & Co. v. Bilasray Khemani and others A I R 1954 Cal. 179 rel. K. K A. Ponnounchami Goundar v. Muthusami Goundar and another A I R 1942 Mad. 252 ref. (b) Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S. 69(3), cl. (a) read with S. 14----Expression "the property of a dissolved firm" occurring in cl. (a)-Covers all claims arising `from a contract"----Word "pro perty" used in cl. (a)--Wide enough to include claims for liquidated damages based on contracts and for accounts based on contracts--- Definition of "property" in S. 14---Only inclusive---Cannot restrict meaning of word as used in S. 69. The object of the second part of clause (a) In section 69(3) is to remove the disability imposed by subsection (2), the words "the property of a dissolved firm" must be construed so as to cover all claims whatsoever which arise "from a contract", the moreso as the word "property" is wide enough to include claims for liquidated damages based on contracts as well as claims for…