JUDGMENT : C. Kunhi Raman, J. The second plaintiff who is the legal representative of the original plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was based upon a business relationship between the original plaintiff and the defendant who was employed in his shop as a clerk for a number of years. In the plaint it was alleged that after the lapse of 18 years, the first plaintiff took the defendant as a working partner in his business, the arrangement being that he was to get eight annas in the rupee out of the net profits of the business. The plaintiff seems to have gone away to his native place in the Tinnevelly District after entrusting his retail shop in Trivandrum to the defendant in this manner. There was also a wholesale shop belonging to the plaintiff which does not come within the scope of this litigation except incidently. The prayer in the plaint was for return of moneys advanced and for accounts. It is unfortunate that in the course of the trial everybody lost sight of the fact that a ‘working partner’ is not necessarily a partner in the business. He may be merely an employee under the capitalist partner although the working partner is to get a share in the net profits as remuneration for the services rendered by him. The learned trial Judge concentrated on the question as to whether the defendant was a partner of the plaintiff in the ordinary meaning of the term and reached the conclusion that he was not. The liability to account mentioned in the plaint was considered to be a question which depended solely upon the finding regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant partners, as understood by the learned trial Judge. The period during which the defendant was put in charge of the plaintiff’s retail shop according to the plaintiff, extended from 1.1.1096 to 17.7.1100. The suit was filed on 26.6.1103. On the finding that the legal relationship of partners relied upon by the plaintiff had not been established, the learned trial Judge reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to ask the defendant to account for the transactions he carried on in the retail shop, of which he was in charge. 2. The suit was filed on 26.6.1103. On the finding that the legal relationship of partners relied upon by the plaintiff had not been established, the learned trial Judge reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to ask the defendant to account for the transactions he carried on in the retail shop, of which he was in charge. 2. On behalf of the appellant stress is laid upon certain averments in the plaint which relate to the circumstances in which the defendant became liable to account and the learned Advocate General who appears for the appellant invites the attention of the court to additional issue No. 9 which was raised in the course of the trial which is worded as follows:- “What is the amount, if any, that is due to the plaintiff from the defendant on settlement of accounts?” It appears from the documents in this case that this additional issue was specifically raised as the result of a petition filed by the plaintiff in the course of the trial before evidence was recorded. This was C.M.P. No. 1614 of 1105. Notice was given on that petition to the defendant before this additional issue was raised. The learned Advocate General on the strength of the averments in the plaint and the written statement which he has read in court invites the attention of the court to ground No. 13 in the grounds of appeal filed in this Court where he has stated as follows:- “In any view the defendant is bound to account for shop goods and amounts received and the court below wrongly refused to go into the extent of money and goods misappropriated and unaccounted for.” There was warrant for raising this as a specific ground of appeal in this court in view of certain admissions made by the defendant in the course of his evidence. The defendant, although he denied that he was plaintiff’s partner, did admit in his evidence that he had filed suits on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of the retail business and obtained decrees. He had admitted in terms which are not very clear that he had advanced loans out of the moneys in the shop. It is said on behalf of the respondent that this statement can only be understood as supplying goods on credit and not giving loans to outsiders. He had admitted in terms which are not very clear that he had advanced loans out of the moneys in the shop. It is said on behalf of the respondent that this statement can only be understood as supplying goods on credit and not giving loans to outsiders. There is also a little confusion with regard to the exact value of the goods which were in the retail shop when the defendant was put in charge of the shop on 1.1.1096. According to the plaintiff, goods of the value of nearly Rs.4196-6-6 were in the shop and during the relevant period already adverted to, other goods were supplied from the plaintiff’s wholesale shop to the defendant for carrying on business in the retail shop. The defendant seems to have made a statement in the course of his evidence about the value of the goods when the business was stopped as a result of illness of the defendant. In view of this evidence, we are not prepared to accept the finding of the court below that there was no liability on the part of the defendant to account for the dealings for which he was responsible. Although he was not a partner in the technical sense of the term, he was liable to account to the plaintiff in respect of some of the matters which are specifically admitted by him in his evidence. In the circumstances, we are constrained to set aside the decree dismissing the suit and to remand the suit for disposal to the court below with a direction that findings should be recorded on the following points and if as a result of these findings the court below is satisfied that the accounts must be scrutinised, a preliminary decree may be passed and a commissioner appointed for scrutinising the accounts and reporting about the correct state of accounts between the parties. The parties shall not however be at liberty to adduce any fresh evidence. The case shall be disposed of on the evidence already on record. The points on which we want the court below to record specific findings before disposing of the suit are the following:- 1. Suits filed by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff’s business for collecting outstandings with special reference to the amounts realised from the debtors. 2. The case shall be disposed of on the evidence already on record. The points on which we want the court below to record specific findings before disposing of the suit are the following:- 1. Suits filed by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff’s business for collecting outstandings with special reference to the amounts realised from the debtors. 2. Loans, if any, granted by the defendant from out of the moneys belonging to the plaintiff in the retail business to outsiders. 3. The value of the goods in the retail shop on 1.1.1096 when the defendant is alleged to have been put in charge of the business. How were those goods disposed of by the defendant. 4. The Plaintiff undertakes to file a statement containing a list of all the items of goods supplied by him from his wholesale shop to the retial business. The court below shall inquire into the question from the evidence on record as to whether these supplies were actually made and if so how these items were disposed of by the defendant. 5. What was the value of the goods in the retail shop when the defendant discontinued the business in that shop and how were they disposed of? 3. On these five points, the court below shall record findings on the basis of which the question has to be decided as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree or not. The suit shall be disposed on the basis of these findings as agreed to by the parties. Since this litigation has been going on for a very long time, the court below shall give special precedence to it and since the points that are formulated above have to be decided on the evidence already on record, the matter shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably before the commencement of the summer vacation. The costs of this appeal shall abide and follow the result and shall be provided for in the decree that will be passed by the trial court. The plaintiff shall in the first instance be liable to pay the court fee in respect of this appeal to the Government. But if he ultimately succeeds in the court below, then suitable direction will have to be made for making the defendant responsible for the payment of this court fee. The plaintiff shall in the first instance be liable to pay the court fee in respect of this appeal to the Government. But if he ultimately succeeds in the court below, then suitable direction will have to be made for making the defendant responsible for the payment of this court fee. Return the records to the trial court as expeditiously as possible. Remanded.