JUDGMENT Srinivasan, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,100 from the first defendant with further interest or in the alternative for dissolution of the suit partnership as on 30-4-1971 and taking of accounts and payment of amount by the first defendant to the plaintiff with interest. 2. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows: In March, 1970, an oral partnership agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 to carry on paddy and rice commission business in Arcot under the name and style of V.T.S. Renugopal Mudaliar. It was agreed that a sum of Rs. 5,000 should be contributed by plaintiff and a similar sum should be contributed by the first defendant where the second defendants's contribution should be a sum of Rs. 100. It was also agreed that the profits and loss should be shared in the proportion 40:40:20 among the plaintiff, first defendant and second defendant respectively. The premises in which the business was carried on belonged to the plaintiffs father-and there was an agreement to pay a rent of Rs. 560 per mensem. The business was stopped on 30-4-1971 and the assets of the partnership as per the accounts were in the shape of deposits in banks of Vellore, Ranipet, Arcot and Visharam in the none of the first defendant. The partnership had also obtained a decree in the name of the first defendant for Rs. 9,207-55 in Sub Court, Vellore against one Manickam of Vellore and a sum of Rs. 456-60 was due from S.R. Rasi Chettiar of Somanur. The first defendant was in possession of cash of Rs. 6,102.59 as per the book entry. There was an liability owed by the firm. An account was taken of the profit due and it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,649-80 from the firm. The plaintiff claimed the said amount with a sum of Rs. 2,451 by way of interest. Thus the plaintiff claimed that a total of Rs. 11,100 should be paid to him by the first defendant. He prayed in the alternative for dissolution of the firm as on 30-4-1971 and taking of accounts. 3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant. 2,451 by way of interest. Thus the plaintiff claimed that a total of Rs. 11,100 should be paid to him by the first defendant. He prayed in the alternative for dissolution of the firm as on 30-4-1971 and taking of accounts. 3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant. He contended that there was no agreement as alleged by the plaintiff and that the real partner was the plaintiffs father Panchakshram Chettiar and not the-plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the firm V.T.S. Renugopal Mudaliar comprised of the plaintiffs father, the first defendant and the second defendant as partners. The plaintiffs father was in management of the business and he had custody of all the account books, cash and other assets of the firm. The business was conducted in a premises belonging to the plaintiffs father but there was no agreement to pay any rent for the premises. The business was carried on for about 13 months by the plaintiffs father and the defendants and it was stopped on account of the high-handed activities of the plaintiffs father. The plaintiffs father looked the premises in which the business was carried on and prevented further continuation of the business. The accounts were never looked into and they were never settled. No amount was found to be due as alleged by the plaintiff. The partnership firm stood dissolved by the-end of March, 1971 and not on 30-4-1971 as stated in the plaint. 4. The second defendant filed a written statement on 16-4-1974 raising the same contentions as the first defendant. On 23-2-1979 the following endorsement was made on the plaint: The plaintiff does not claim any relief as against the second defendant. He may exonerated. The endorsement was signed by the plaintiff as well as his counsel. The second defendant died and his legal representatives were not brought on record. 5. The trial court framed as many as 7 issues. On issue 1, the trial court found that the plaintiff was a partner of the business as alleged by him and the terms of the partnership were as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. On issue 2 the trial court held that the accounts of the partnership firm were not looked into and profits and assets were not ascertained as alleged in the plaint. That issue was answered against the plaintiff. On issue 2 the trial court held that the accounts of the partnership firm were not looked into and profits and assets were not ascertained as alleged in the plaint. That issue was answered against the plaintiff. On issue 3 the trial court held that the partnership firm was liable to pay rent for the premises in which the business was carried on as alleged by the plaintiff. On issue 4 the trial held that the plaintiff was in possession of all the assets excepting the cash which was with the first defendant. On issue 5 the trial court held that the first defendant was not liable to pay any interest unless there is final settlement of accounts among the partners. On issue 6 the trial court held that the plaintiff having exonerated the second defendant, he is not entitled the claim the alternative relief as all the necessary parties are not before the Court. Consequently the trial court dismissed the suit. 6. In this appeal it is stremuously contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that there was a settlement of accounts among the partners and the plaintiff should be found to be entitled to a decree for a specific sum of Rs. 11,100 as against the first defendant. I do not find any substance in the said contention. The plaintiff issued a notice on 13-11-1973 which is marked as Ex.A-27. In the said notice there is no whisper of the alleged settlement of accounts. He has merely stated that the business was closed on 30-4-1971 and the business premises had been vacated. It is further stated therein that as per the accounts the plaintiff, became entitled to the capital of Rs. 5,000 invested and Rs. 3,304-80 being his share of the profits. He has not referred to any settlement of accounts between the parties. There is absolutely no evidence worth acceptance in support of the claim of the settlement of accounts. The interested testimony of P.W. 1 cannot be accepted as conclusive on the question. P.W.2 and 3 have not stated anything with regard to the alleged settlement of accounts. P.W.4 is the father of the plaintiff. His evidence is no better than that of the plaintiff. While the plaintiffs case is that the accounts were all with the first defendant, he has produced the accounts in court. P.W.2 and 3 have not stated anything with regard to the alleged settlement of accounts. P.W.4 is the father of the plaintiff. His evidence is no better than that of the plaintiff. While the plaintiffs case is that the accounts were all with the first defendant, he has produced the accounts in court. The plaintiff has not produced any document to prove the alleged settlement of accounts. A perusal of ExA-25 shows that there were disputes between the partners and there was no settlement of accounts at any time. Learned Counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the evidence of the first defendant as D.W. 1. In his evidence he had stated that when himself and the second defendant requested Panchaksharam Chettiar to disclose the accounts, the latter replied that the matter could be attended to after the business picked up. He stated further that the business stopped two months thereafter and that he did not know whether there was profit or loss. He stated that the defendants did not issue any notice to Panchaksharam Chettiar and that they did not demand accounts from the said Panchaksharam Chettiar. He also stated that he did not make any complaint to the police against Panchaksharam Chettiar and that he was sending word only through the second defendant. That part of the deposition on which reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the appellant does not in any way help the case of the plaintiff to prove that there was a settlement of accounts. It is for the plaintiff to prove by positive evidence that there was a settlement of accounts and that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,100 thereunder, I agree with the conclusion of the trial court that there was no settlement of accounts and the plaintiff cannot claim a liquidated sum of Rs. 11,100 from the first defendant. 7. As regards the alternative relief claimed by the plaintiff, the suit is clearly not maintainable since the plaintiff has exonerated the second defendant. In a suit for dissolution and taking of accounts among the partners all the partners should be made parties. They are all necessary parties and in the absence of any of them the suit cannot be proceeded with, In Yakub Ibrahim v. A Gulamabbas, Mr. In a suit for dissolution and taking of accounts among the partners all the partners should be made parties. They are all necessary parties and in the absence of any of them the suit cannot be proceeded with, In Yakub Ibrahim v. A Gulamabbas, Mr. Justice Desai has stated the law on the subject as follows: The subject-matter of a partnership suit generally is the severance of the jural relationship and the determination of the mutual rights of the partners. There being mutual agency and mutual obligation to render accounts, the position of parties in a partnership suit is in some particulars different from that of parties in an ordinary suit. Each of the partners, in a partnership suit, is really in turn plaintiff and defendant and in both capacities comes before the Court for the adjudication of his rights or liability relatively to the other partners which the court endovours to determine by its decree. In such a suit it is well established that a decree can go either in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant or in favour of any defendant or defendants against any other party or parties to the suit. Now in a partnership suit all the partners or then legal representatives must be made parties because all the parties necessary for the disposal of the subject-matter of the suit including taking of accounts must be before the court or the suit will fail. Proper and complete accounts cannot be taken as between some only of the partners. The necessary corollary of this is that if a necessary party has been omitted and added at a time when the suit against him is barred, the whole suit will be dismissed as happened in the Calcutta case relied on by Mr. D.V. Patel. The same consideration must apply where in a partnership action by a partner against his other partners, the claim is barred against some of those partners but the bar of limitation is saved against some other or other partners by virtue of any acknowledgment and this is for the simple reason that when accounts are taken in any such suit, all the partners would not be before the Court. The reason of the rule is that accounts between a number of partners cannot properly be taken by the court in the absence of any of them. The reason of the rule is that accounts between a number of partners cannot properly be taken by the court in the absence of any of them. It may be that in a particular case this rule might result in "hardship or even defeat a just claim of one partner against another. It may be that the absence of the partner against whom the suit is barred by limitation would not ultimately have made any real difference in the actual result of the accounts, It may also be that on proper taking of accounts that partner might turn out not to be a debtor of the firm or of the other partners but something may be found due to him. But all these considerations cannot override the application of the statute of limitation and after all these statues of repose are not intended to help those who a lumber and sleep over their rights. Therefore, if the plaintiff did not choose to bring this action for nearly 4 years after the dissolution of the partnership, he has to blame himself if he is not able to get any relief from the court. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the provisions of Order 30, Rule 4, C.P.C. The said Rule is in the following terms. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such persons dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it shall not be necessary to join the legal representative of the descended as a party to the suit. (2) Nothing in Sub-rule (1) shall limit or otherwise affect any right which the legal representative of the deceased may have (a) to apply to be made a party to the suit, or (b) to enforce any claim against the survivor or survivors. The language of the Rule indicates that it will come into play only in a suit where two or more persons sue or have been sued in the name of the firm under the provisions of Order 30, Rules 1 to 3, C.P.C. This is not a suit in which the plaintiff has sued in the name of the firm. Nor the defendant have been sued in the name of the firm. Nor the defendant have been sued in the name of the firm. Even otherwise on the facts of the case the rule has no applicability as the second defendant was exonerated even when he was alive. There is no question of adding-his legal representatives after his death because the second defendant was himself exonerated. 9. In the result all the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the appellant fail and the appeal in dismissed, but, there will be no order as to costs.