JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— This was a suit for an account of a partnership which had already been dissolved. The prayer contained in the plaint was “that a sum of about Rs. 200, together with interest, be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant, and whatever further amount might upon taking an account be found due to the plaintiffs by the defendant on account of the partnership business be also awarded to the plaintiff.” The defence was that nothing was due to the plaintiffs, but that on the contrary Rs. 760 odd was payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The Court of first instance took an account of the disputed items, and coming to the conclusion that a certain sum was due to the plaintiffs, made a decree for that sum in the plaintiffs' favour. Both parties appealed. The lower appellate Court considered the account, disallowed some of the items awarded to the plaintiffs, and directed a fresh account to be taken. On the taking of an account it appeared that nothing was due to the plaintiffs, and that a sum of Rs. 267-2-11 was due by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The plaintiffs' claim was accordingly dismissed. The defendant has preferred this appeal, and he contends that the Court below ought to have made a decree in his favour for the amount found to be due to him. The learned Vakil for the appellant has not been able to adduce any authority in support of the contention that in a suit like this a decree should, under the Code of Civil Procedure, be made in favour of the defendant. The only case in which the Code directs a decree to be made in favour of a defendant appears to be that referred to in section 216. The learned Vakil refers to form No. 133 of the fourth Schedule. That is the form of a final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership referred to in section 215 of the Code. This was not a suit for dissolution of partnership but for an account of partnership already dissolved. It was a suit of the description referred to in section 215. In such a suit the Court should before making its decree direct an account to be taken in order to ascertain the amount due to or from any party. This was not a suit for dissolution of partnership but for an account of partnership already dissolved. It was a suit of the description referred to in section 215. In such a suit the Court should before making its decree direct an account to be taken in order to ascertain the amount due to or from any party. This the Court did and it was found that so far from anything being found due to the plaintiffs, a certain sum was due by them to the defendant. Under these circumstances the Court was right in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit and in not making a decree in favour of the defendant. It was not the defendant's case that a decree should be made in his favour and the contention now put forward was apparently never raised in the lower appellate Court. The case of Thirukumaresan Chetti v. Subbaraya Chetti, [1895] I.L.R., 20 Mad., p. 313. relied on by the learned Vakil for the appellant, does not appear to me to have any bearing on the present case. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.