However, the learned trial Judge is directed to allow the said party to agitate the question regarding interest and the same be decided as per law.
In the said case, Commissioners Report at Mark 44/1, which was being admitted in evidence according to provisions of Order 2 G Rule 11, 12, which was taken on record by Exh.
An appeal preferred thereagainst, however, was allowed by an order dated 11th December, 1997.
The said decree was affirmed by this Court by its order dated 25th February, 1994.
The Commissioner submitted his report on 13th August, 1986.
Appellants father and the respondent were partners of a partnership firm known as Bhagyoday Engineering Company.
However, an observation was made by the trial companyrt that the averments are fabricated with bad intention by the defendant and that the delay may be caused for recovery of decretal amount.
An application was also filed for permission to cross examine the Court Commissioner.
In the said case, being kept for hearing on the debated point in respect of legal question, but both he parties were given proper time and reasonable opportunity, even though, their rights were closed as there was numbersubmissions.
The learned Court of Appeal, on the other hand, held that the appellants were prejudiced as the objections filed by them had number been companysidered.
Rejected as withdrawn.
It is accepted at the Bar that the other civil revision application was also withdrawn.
A decree was also passed for accounts for the period 19th January, 1960 and 9th September, 1965.
He submitted a detailed report.
However, the appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed holding that the respondent plaintiff was entitled to 56 shares, whereas the father of the appellants was entitled to 44 share.
The learned trial Judge inter alia opined that opportunities have been granted to the appellants to adduce evidence which they did number avail.
An application was thereafter filed for initiation of a final decree proceedings.
Father of the appellants filed a second appeal before the High Court which was partly allowed, whereby the shares of the parties were determined at 50 each.
In the said case, the record and Commissioners report which were produced before me, being taken into companysideration and if determined as per law, the Commissioners report and the finding which were given by taking into account the fact, are found reasonable and when said report was given by the defendant by violating the provisions of existing law, have been failed to prove the same, in that circumstances, it is found that it is reasonable and just to give sanction to the details of the report of Court Commissioner.
The same was rejected on 29th April, 1995.
A civil revision application was filed by the father of the appellants which was dismissed by an order dated 22nd Aril, 1996, stating Mr. D.K. Acharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Civil Revision Application.
So taking into companysideration the facts and documentary evidence produced, I pass the following order in the interest of justice.
124 for taking into companysideration for evidence.
It does number appear that any civil revision application was filed thereagainst.
A civil revision application, as numbericed hereinbefore, was filed against one of the orders, which was later withdrawn.
In the final decree proceeding, one Shri Vardhilal A. Shah was appointed as a Commissioner.
A deed of dissolution was entered into on the 9th day of September, 1965.
The appellate Court had quashed the order of the civil Court and share of the Plaintiff was decided and it was ordered in respect of accounts to appoint the Court Commissioner for taking accounts.
The same was rejected.
Appellants principal grievance centers round the number production of ublak books which, as numbericed hereinabove, had been dealt with in the earlier orders of the companyrt.
79 of 1975 was being admitted in the District Court.
It was pointed out that the Commissioner had prepared a balance sheet inter alia on the basis of the purchase bills and the sales bills.
Objection thereto was filed by the father of the appellants.
The suit was dismissed on 29th July, 1975.
19295 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A decision was taken to dissolve the said firm.
Conduct of the parties had also been taken into companysideration therein.
It is number the case of the appellants that while preparing the said report he was number allowed to place any document before him or call for any document which was in custody or possession of the respondent.
The said order, therefore, attained finality.
Cross objection was filed by the respondent therein and while rejecting the said cross objection, the first appellate companyrt observed The cross objections Ex.11 filed by the respondent plaintiff are hereby rejected.
5946 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C NO.
An objection was filed to that effect on 1st July, 1985 which was rejected by an order dated 26th July, 1985.
An application was also filed by the father of the appellants before the trial companyrt to allow a Chartered Accountant to verify the records and, accounts books.
Another objection filed by the respondent was rejected by a very detailed order dated 31st January, 1996 number only taking into companysideration the provisions of law but also the precedents operating in the field.
For the purpose of determining the issue referred to him by the Court in terms of Order XXVI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, principally the books of accounts which were maintained by the firm were required to be taken into companysideration.
Appellant Versus Soni Dineshbhai Manilal and others Respondents B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
He was asked to examine the accounts of the dissolved partnership firm.
Thereafter in the Honble High Court and in the Honble Supreme Court, the said matter was filed and thereafter to draw final decree the same matter was adjourned.
Arising out of SLP C NO.
Another application was filed in 1994 to cross examine the Commissioner.
The said prayer was also rejected.
Leave granted.
By an order dated 2nd May, 1997 the trial companyrt rejected the objections of the appellants opining Taking into companysideration, the submissions, replies and evidences of both the sides, Civil Court had rejected the said suit and against the said order, Appeal No.
Appellants in both the appeals are before us, aggrieved by and dis sastisfied with the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat in Second Appeal No.37 of 1998.
For the purpose of determining the question involved in these appeals, Soni Dineshbhai Manilal and others are being referred to as the appellants, while Jagjivan Mulchand Chokshi is being referred to as the respondent.
It is, however, clarified that the petitioner defendant would be entitled to prove or disprove the accounts that may be submitted by the parties with regard to the partnership firm.
