JUDGMENT M.L. Singhvi, J. - This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 27.9.1995 whereby he had dismissed the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.8.1985 whereby he had dismissed their suit for rendition of accounts and for dissolution of firm M/s. Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Manimajra. Facts : Banwari Lal Gupta and his son Naresh Kumar Gupta filed suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm M/s. Aggarwal Sales Corporation against Mewa Lal son of Kirori Ram r/o Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh. It is alleged in the plaint that Banwari Lal Gupta, Naresh Kumar Gupta, Mewa Lal, and one Kirori Ram floated a firm M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Manimajra on 1.1.1975. It was a partnership firm. Banwari Lal had 40% share, Naresh Kumar had 10% share, Mewa Lal defendant had 10% share while Kirori Ram had 40% share. Mewa Lal-defendant was a working partner. He was maintaining accounts books. He had maintained accounts books of the firm properly till 1970-80. Accounts books were handed over to the plaintiffs for inspection by them but Mewa Lal did not settle accounts. Mewa Lal maintained books but not properly and there were major discrepancies in the books of accounts. It was alleged in the plaint that Mewa Lal-defendant was the accounting party. Banwari Lal and Naresh Kumar-plaintiffs asked for the rendition of accounts. Kirori Ram was party to the suit in the beginning but was given up by the counsel for the plaintiffs on 6.4.1984. Mewa Lal-defendant contested the suit. It was admitted that there was a partnership between him, plaintiffs and Kirori Ram. It was also admitted that he was maintaining account books. He maintained the books correctly. He handed over the account books to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff. It has also admitted that he was accounting partner. Accounts of the firm were settled. Firm was to pay Rs. 24896.06 paise to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff, which amount has already been paid to him. A sum of Rs. 93765.24 paise was payable by the firm to Kirori Ram. Mewa Lal was to pay Rs. 38442/- to the firm. It was urged that there were other liabilities of the firm like sale tax etc. Plaintiffs should have filed suit for the recovery of specified amount. No suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm was maintainable. 2. 93765.24 paise was payable by the firm to Kirori Ram. Mewa Lal was to pay Rs. 38442/- to the firm. It was urged that there were other liabilities of the firm like sale tax etc. Plaintiffs should have filed suit for the recovery of specified amount. No suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm was maintainable. 2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the defendant is an accounting party ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present for ? OPD 3. Whether the accounts have already been settled between the parties and the amount due to the plaintiff No. 2 has already been paid ? OPD 4. Relief. 3. Vide order dated 24.8.1985, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of his findings that no suit was competent in the absence of impleading Kirori Ram who was having 40% share in the firm. It was found that in a suit for rendition of accounts of partnership firm and for its dissolution, all the partners and their legal heirs must be made parties because every partner is a necessary party in the rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership firm. It was found that in a suit for rendition of accounts every partner is practically speaking in the position of a plaintiff or a defendant and each one of them is liable to render accounts to the other and pay the amount found due from him. Suit for rendition of accounts against some of the partners only was not maintainable. It was, however, found that Mewa Lal defendant was maintaining accounts and as such was an accounting party. It was found that M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation was never dissolved and had been continuing its business with Mewa Lal defendant as its working partner and as such the question of the plaintiff filing suit for recovery of specific amount could not arise. It was found that a sum of Rs. 24896.06 paise had been paid to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff. It was found that payment of this amount was, however, not an indication that the accounts had been settled or it was final payment made to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff signifying his retirement from the firm. It was thus found that suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm was competent. 24896.06 paise had been paid to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff. It was found that payment of this amount was, however, not an indication that the accounts had been settled or it was final payment made to Naresh Kumar-plaintiff signifying his retirement from the firm. It was thus found that suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm was competent. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed on the simple ground that in the absence of Kirori Ram fourth partner suit was not maintainable because in a suit for rendition of accounts, every partner is plaintiff as well as defendant and each of them is liable to render accounts to the other. 4. Plaintiffs went in appeal which was dismissed by Learned Additional Judge, Chandigarh. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. In the suit originally framed Kirori Ram who was one of the partners was impleaded as defendant. Kirori Ram died on 22.2.1984. His son Mewa Lal was already a party. On 6.4.1984, Sh. G.K. Verma, counsel for the plaintiffs made the following statement : "I give up defendant No. 2-Kirori Ram in this claim and do not claim any relief against him". 7. Plaintiffs thus gave up Kirori Ram saying that they were not claiming any relief against him. Kirori Ram had 40% share in the partnership business. Mewa Lal-defendant who is the son of Kirori Ram was already a party to the suit although he is one of the legal heirs/LRs of Kirori Ram. The share of Kirori Ram vested in his legal heirs on his demise. Can Mewa Lal son of Kirori Ram-defendant who was already there as defendant in his capacity be viewed as representing the estate of Kirori Ram ? If he can be viewed as representing the estate of Kirori Ram being one of his LRs, giving up of Kirori Ram from the array of the defendants will not make the suit infirm or incompetent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Sh. If he can be viewed as representing the estate of Kirori Ram being one of his LRs, giving up of Kirori Ram from the array of the defendants will not make the suit infirm or incompetent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Sh. G.K. Verma advocate gave up Kirori Ram-defendant No. 2 from the array of the defendants stating that he does not claim any relief against him under a mistaken impression that Kirori Ram was not a necessary party to the suit and suit could proceed particularly when his son Mewa Lal was already a defendant in the suit in his individual capacity as one of the partners of the firm. It was submitted that statement should be allowed to be withdrawn and Kirori Ram be treated as defendant in the case and after his death, his estate should be deemed to have been represented by his son Mewa Lal who is one of LRs of Kirori Ram. 9. In support of this submission he drew my attention to Ram Sakal Singh v. Mosamat Monako Devi (dead) and another, AIR 1998 SC 277, where it was held that where interest held by the defendants was joint and indivisible death of one of the defendants took place, LR of deceased was already on record. Counsel due to mistaken perception instead of seeking transposition of LR in place of deceased defendant sought deletion of name of deceased defendant. Mistake of counsel was condoned and existing defendant was transposed as legal representative of the deceased defendant. In para 13 of the report the Honble Supreme Court observed as follows : "Shri Ranjit Kumar, obviously due to mistaken perception of the procedural part, has instead of seeking transposition of the legal representatives to represent the estate of the deceased respondent Nos. 8 and 15 sought deletion of the names of the deceased. Without there being already on record some persons eligible and entitled in law to represent the estate of the deceased, the deceased defendants/respondents were deleted. The consequence of deletion is that the decree of the Courts below as against the deceased becomes final. If the decree is inseparable and the rights of the parties are indivisible between the contesting parties and the deceased the consequence would be that the suit against stands abated as a whole. The consequence of deletion is that the decree of the Courts below as against the deceased becomes final. If the decree is inseparable and the rights of the parties are indivisible between the contesting parties and the deceased the consequence would be that the suit against stands abated as a whole. But if one of the respondent/respondents or defendant/defendants is already on record what needs to be done is an intimation to the Court by filing a formal application or memo to transpose the existing defendant/defendants or respondent/respondents as legal representatives of the deceased defendant/defendants or respondent/respondents. In view of the mistake committed by the counsel, the Court has to consider the effect thereof. On the facts, we think that cause of justice would get advanced if the misconception as to the procedure on the part of the counsel is condoned and if respondent Nos. 8 and 15 instead of being deleted respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are substituted and transposed as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 8 and respondent No. 16 is transposed as legal representative of respondent No. 15." 10. On the strength of these observations of the Honble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that statement of Shri G.K. Verma, Advocate giving up Kirori Ram defendant No. 2 from the array of the defendants should have been permitted to be withdrawn as Kirori Ram-defendant was one of the partners in firm M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation and in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm, each partner is a necessary party. It was submitted that this statement should be allowed to be withdrawn and LRs. of Kirori Ram be allowed to have been brought on record in place of late Kirori Ram or at any rate the estate of Kirori Ram should be treated to have been sufficiently represented by Mewa Lal son of Kirori Ram particularly when in the first appellate court an application had been made by the plaintiffs that statement of Sh. G.K. Verma, Advocate should be allowed to be withdrawn and Mewa Lal, Prem Chand, Murari Lal, Gian Chand, sons, Anguri Devi-wife, Smt. Radha, Smt. Gini and Smt. Usha Rani daughters of late Kirori Ram be substituted as LRs/heirs of Kirori Ram. G.K. Verma, Advocate should be allowed to be withdrawn and Mewa Lal, Prem Chand, Murari Lal, Gian Chand, sons, Anguri Devi-wife, Smt. Radha, Smt. Gini and Smt. Usha Rani daughters of late Kirori Ram be substituted as LRs/heirs of Kirori Ram. It was alleged by them in that application before the first appellate Court that Mewa Lal as one of the LRs and representative is sufficient to represent the estate of Kirori Ram. It was submitted that the court should not have been so pedantic and narrow in its approach as not to allow withdrawal of the statement of Sh. G.K. Verma, Advocate whereby he had given up Kirori Ram from the array of the defendants under a mistaken impression that he was not necessary party to the suit as no relief was claimed against him when it is known principle of law of partnership that in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm, each partner is a plaintiff as well as a defendant. Each partner in a way is an accounting party to the other. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that Sh. G.K. Verma, Advocate who represented the plaintiffs voluntarily gave up Kirori Ram vide his statement dated 6.4.1984 saying that no relief was being claimed against him. Appellants cannot now be allowed to turn round and say that the LRs/heirs of Kirori Ram (dead) be allowed to be brought on record or at any rate, Mewa Lal son of Kirori Ram who is already defendant in the suit be treated as representing his own interest in the partnership business as well as the interest of Kirori Ram as one of his LRs/heirs. 12. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Paras Dass v. Prem Chand, AIR 1935 Patna 356 where it was held that a suit for dissolution of partnership and account cannot be tried in the absence of the alleged third partner. 13. In Akub Ibrahim v. I.A. Gulamabbas Mahomedali and six others of the deceased Vohra Mahomedali Haiderali, AIR 1958 Bombay 51, where it was held that 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. 13. In Akub Ibrahim v. I.A. Gulamabbas Mahomedali and six others of the deceased Vohra Mahomedali Haiderali, AIR 1958 Bombay 51, where it was held that 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 endeavours 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. In a partnership suit all the partners or their 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. 14. He drew my attention to S. Mohinder Singh v. S. Des Singh, AIR 1971 Punjab and Haryana 186, where it was held that suit for accounts by one partner against some only of the others is not maintainable. Order 30 Rule 4, CPC does not sustain such action. In a suit for rendition of accounts every partner is in the position of a plaintiff or a defendant and each one of them is liable to render accounts and pay the amount found due from him. 15. It is quite true that in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership each partner is a necessary party. Without each partner being there in the suit, whether as plaintiff or as defendant, no dissolution and rendition of accounts can take place. 15. It is quite true that in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership each partner is a necessary party. Without each partner being there in the suit, whether as plaintiff or as defendant, no dissolution and rendition of accounts can take place. In this case, however, in the suit originally framed, Banwari Lal Gupta and Naresh Kumar Gupta-partners were the plaintiffs seeking rendition of accounts and dissolution of the firm M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation against Mewa Lal son of Kirori Ram and Kirori Ram. Kirori Ram died on 22.7.1984. After the death of Kirori Ram, his LRs/heirs were not brought on record. Instead the counsel for the plaintiffs made statement on 6.4.1984 giving him up from the array of the defendants. He gave him up being under the impression that rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm could take place as rendition of accounts was being claimed only from Mewa Lal who was a working partner (accounting party), forgetting that in a suit for rendition of accounts and for dissolution of firm, each partner has to be arrayed as he is accounting party to the other. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed although on merit it was found by both the courts below that Mewa Lal was a working partner/accounting party and as such was liable to render accounts but they were non-suited because of the non-impleadment of LRs/heirs of Kirori Ram. Learned first appellate court should have allowed the LRs/heirs of Kirori Ram to be brought on record having felt that Kirori Ram was a necessary party to the suit being one of the partners and in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of the firm each partner is necessary party or at any rate should have treated Mewa Lal as representing his own interest as well as the interest of other LRs/heirs of Kirori Ram in the partnership business. At the alter of procedure substantive rights of the parties should not have been sacrificed Learned trial Court should not have been a mute spectator in the trial. At the alter of procedure substantive rights of the parties should not have been sacrificed Learned trial Court should not have been a mute spectator in the trial. It should have taken a lively interest in the trial of the suit and pointed out to the counsel that Kirori Ram could not be given up as in a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of firm each partner is a necessary party and without the presence of all the partners no rendition of accounts could take place. 16. For the reasons given above, the judgments and decrees of the courts below cannot be sustained and these are accordingly set aside. Plaintiffs suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of the firm M/s Aggarwal Sales Corporation, Manimajra is decreed preliminarily against Mewa Lal and his LRs/heirs namely Mewa Lal and others. Interest of Kirori Ram-defendant shall be deemed to have been sufficiently represented by Mewa Lal son of Kirori Ram who was lying arrayed as defendant. Now the learned trial Court shall appoint a local commission to go into the accounts of the firm and proceed towards the drawing up of the final decree. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed