P.K.Raghunath Aged 40 Years vs M.A.Panjaly on 14 June, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 87 of 2007()


1. P.K.RAGHUNATH AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.A.PANJALY, AGED 66 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. JALAJA PRAKASH, AGED 51 YEARS,

3. M.A.SISHAN, AGED 49 YEARS,

4. SHEELA JAGANGIR, AGED 46 YEARS,

5. M.A.SAJEEV, AGED 45 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.K.RADHIKA

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SUDHISH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :14/06/2007

 O R D E R
                            M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

                    -----------------------------

                         C.R.P.No. 87 OF 2007 A

                    -----------------------------

                   Dated this the 14th June, 2007.



                                 O R D E R

This revision petition is filed seeking to quash the

order in I.A.5522/06 in O.S.8/05. The Managing Partner of

a firm died and a petition was filed to implead his legal

representatives. The court below allowed the application

and permitted the petitioners to proceed with the suit. It

is against that decision the revision has been preferred by

the defendant. According to the defendant, on the death of

the Managing Partner the partnership firm will get

automatically dissolved and therefore, there cannot be any

continuation of the suit by the legal representatives. On

the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded

parties submitted that there is partnership agreement

entered into between the partners and as per clause 10 of

the partnership deed there is a specific provision that the

partnership firm shall not get dissolved and the legal

representatives of the deceased partner is entitled to be

admitted to the partnership firm. Learned counsel for the

revision petitioner submits that there was no mention about

any partnership deed and no document was produced before

the court below and therefore she is not in a position to

answer those points. A perusal of the order also does not

C.R.P.87/07 2

reveal regarding the production of any partnership

agreement therein. So, the only course left open for this

Court is to set aside the order and direct the Principal

Munsiff-I, Kozhikode to consider the whole matter afresh

after permitting both parties to produce documents or

adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.

C.R.P is disposed of accordingly. The parties are directed

to appear before the trial court on 16.7.2007.

M.N.KRISHNAN

Judge

jj