1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CIVIL  APPEAL No.1740  OF  2008

   P.R. SARIN & ANR.                                        

...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus    HARBANS LAL SACHDEVA & ORS. ...  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

The respondent No.1  has died.    An   application  for  substitution of the  

names  of  the  legal  representatives  has  been  filed.     The  names   of   the   legal  

representatives are  mentioned in   the application.  The prayer is allowed.  The legal  

representatives, as mentioned in the application are ordered to be brought on record.  

They shall be impleaded as  respondents (ii) to (vi).  Legal representative at Sl.No.(i) is  

already on record as respondent No.2.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th November,  

2004, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, disposing of the  

Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel appearing for the appellants submits before us that in a suit for  

dissolution of the partnership, a preliminary decree already stands passed by the court

2

of Additional Judge, District Court, Gwalior in Case No.7-A 78 C.S.  The said order  

was passed in the suit filed by the appellant herein as plaintiffs seeking for a decree of  

dissolution of partnership and for transaction  accounts of the partnership.  In the said  

suit, a  preliminary decree was   

passed on 10th October, 1979, declaring that the partnership firm would be deemed to  

have been dissolved from 15/02/1975 and that an advertisement be taken out regarding  

the aforesaid dissolution.   Our attention is  drawn to the orders of the dissolution  

made by the Trial Court in the said preliminary decree, particularly, to the following  

order as appearing in paragraph 3:-

“All  the  transactions  of  the  accounts  between the plaintiffs & defendants be sough for.  It is  also be observed.  It is also be observed in this regards  that by the order dated 01.2.77 of the Hon'ble Supreme  Court, the defendants No. 1 & 2 had paid the plaintiffs on  dated  05.2.77  and  08.2.77  Rs.1,46,513.60  through  this  Court.  In this regard it is also be observed that according  to  the order  dated  24.8.79 passed  by the Hon'ble  High  Court,  M.P.  Bench,  at  Gwalior,  the  defendant  No.1  present  Receiver,  who is  maintaining  the  accounts  and  submitting  in  this  court,  and  for  auditing  of  all  such  accounts Shri P.D. Garg & Co. Patankar Bazar, lashkar  is  appointed Auditor and he is instructed to submit his  report by 15.11.79.”

It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellants that the Receiver, who was  

appointed by the court has since died and he has not been replaced till date.  It is also  

submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the Receiver was required  

to maintain accounts and submit the same in the court, which was to be audited by

3

Shri P.D. Garg & Co., who was appointed as the Auditor by the court and the said  

report was required to be filed expeditiously.

Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  as  also  the  

senior  counsel  appearing for the respondents,    we find  that  the dispute  revolves  

around within  a  very  narrow compass.   The  appellants  are  before  this  Court  for  

proper implementation of  the preliminary decree which is  passed,  particularly,  for  

implementation of the directions contained in paragraph 3, which are extracted above.  

We are also of the considered opinion  that since the Receiver appointed by the court  

has died in the meantime, it would be necessary for the trial court to pass appropriate  

orders appointing a new Receiver in place of the deceased Receiver.  Such an order of  

appointment/substitution  shall  be  passed    as  expeditiously  as  possible,  preferably  

within a  period of two  months from today by the trial court.  After the Receiver is so  

appointed,  he shall  be given the custody of all  the records and the accounts of the  

Company, as as to enable him to place the same before the Auditor for the purpose of  

auditing of all such accounts in terms of the orders passed in the preliminary decree  

dated 15/10/1979.  The report shall be submitted by the Auditor as expeditiously as  

possible so as to enable the Trial Court    to pass the final decree in accordance with  

law and after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties.

The  parties  shall  now appear  before  the  Trial  Court  for  further  orders  on  

28/05/2009.  Appropriate orders shall be passed by the Trial Court in terms of the  

observations made herein.

4

Mr. Amlan Kumar Ghosh, counsel appearing for the appellants, however, has  

submitted at this stage that the Trial Court is wrong in saying that the accounts be  

submitted by the receiver with a report by  15.11.1979 and then the same should have  

been recorded as upto 15.11.1979.  We express no opinion on the same as it is the order  

of  the  Trial  Court.   He  may,  however,   approach  the  Trial  Court  with  a  proper  

application in that regard   in accordance with law.  

    The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the order.  

The records of the trial court, which were called for and are  available with us,  

are also to be send back immediately, so as to made available with the trial court on or  

before the next date.

             ......................J.                           (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)   

              ......................J.                             (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)           

New Delhi,      May 20, 2009.