JUDGMENT Defendants 1 and 2 filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur in O.S. No.54 of 1995 dated 16-4-1999 decreeing the suit filed for rendition of accounts in respect of firm M/s. Anand Theatre from 1-4-1993 to 1-4-1995 and for payment of 1/4th share of income from the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff with interest at 24% per annum and costs. 2. Pleadings which are not in dispute and necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: Plaintiff alleged that himself, defendants 1 to 3 are partners in the firm in which plaintiff has 1/4th share and defendants 1 to 3 also has 1/4th share each which was re-constituted under a partnership deed on 1-4-1992 and was doing business in running cinema theatre under the name and style "Anand Theatre" in Pudupet, Nagari Mandal. It has also got shopping complex in the premises apart from vacant land described in the schedule as partnership property. The partnership was registered under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short "the Act") as per the certificate issued by the Registrar dated 24-9-1994. According to the plaint averments the construction of the theatre was completed in June, 1978 and the firm has taken up the construction of shopping complex between 1989 and 1991 out of the income derived from the cinema theatre. Defendants 1 and 2 who are the managing partners of the firm are managing the theatre in 1992 and prior to 1992 1st defendant was managing the business and defendants 1 and 2 are cousins. The 3rd defendant is a close relative of defendants 1 and 2. All the three defendants colluded together with ulterior motive and tried to defraud the plaintiff of his plaint, schedule property. For the last three years defendants 1 and 2 turned hostile and successfully evading to render the accounts and misappropriating the income derived from the business. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff they are evading to render the accounts and pay his share in the income. Therefore, he got issued legal notice dated 5-12-1994 calling upon the defendants to render proper accounts of the firm from the beginning. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff they are evading to render the accounts and pay his share in the income. Therefore, he got issued legal notice dated 5-12-1994 calling upon the defendants to render proper accounts of the firm from the beginning. The 1st defendant having received the legal notice sent a reply dated 21-12-1994 with false claims stating that the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 are only name lenders and have no right in the property. The claim of the 1st defendant is that the plaint suit schedule property is his exclusive property. It was pleaded that an extent of Ac.1.75 cts. in Sy. NO.196 was purchased in the name of 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 16-6-1971; the entire sale consideration was contributed by plaintiffs father-P. Dasappa Mudali, Kuppuswamy Mudali - father of defendant No.3 and Govindaswamy Mudali-father of defendant No.2 and by the 1st defendant; all others are illiterate except knowing to sign in Tamil and 1st defendant was only literate. The property was purchased for construction of cinema theatre. On such purchase the father of the plaintiff and respective fathers of defendants 2 and 3 have jointly mortgaged the land along with their private properties in the State Bank of India, Puttur branch and availed loan of Rs.94,000/for construction of theatre which was commenced in the year 1972. All the above said persons jointly borrowed the amount from Bhagyalakshmi Finance and Jayalakshmi Finance Corporation for the purpose of construction of theatre. On completion of construction of the theatre, business was commenced by exhibiting films in the year 1978. The 15t defendant was managing the theatre and discharging the debts borrowed from the Financial Corporations from out of the income derived from the theatre. While the matter stood thus, father of the plaintiff along with other partners including the 1 5t defendant jointly sold a portion of the land in Sy. No.196 under 13 registered sale deeds under Exs.A-9 to A-21 and realized a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-; out of the said sale consideration, Rs.80,000/- was paid towards debts and balance Rs.20,000/- was shared by four partners Rs.5,000/- each, as each one is having 1/4thshare in the property. The income derived from the theatre was paid towards the debt due to the State Bank of India, Puttur till 1985forabout 3,50,000/-. The income derived from the theatre was paid towards the debt due to the State Bank of India, Puttur till 1985forabout 3,50,000/-. Further, the income realized till 1989 was paid towards discharge of mortgage loans due to K.G. Pandurangan, K.V. Ganapathy and K.P. Dhanapal under four mortgage deeds. The discharged mortgage deeds Exs.A-22 to A-25 are also registered in the name of four partners. The partnership firm was un-registered till 1986 and on 24-3-1986 a deed of partnership was executed among the partners and got the partnership registered under Section 59 of the Act with the Registrar of Firms showing plaintiffs father- Dasappa Mudali and fathers of defendants 2 and 3 along with 1 5t defendant as partners under EX.A-2. Partnership firm deemed to have commenced from 1-4-1986. On the death of plaintiffs father on 11-10-1988 firm was dissolved and new partnership was constituted on 13-3-1989 under EX.A-3 with the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as partners, and reconstituted with the same partners on 1-4-1992 under EX.A-4 in which all the partners are having 1/4th share each. Being the defendants 1 and 2 are managing partners, colluded with the 3rd defendant and defrauded the plaintiff in not rendering the accounts. The plaintiff estimated that his 1 14th share comes to Rs.90,000/- per annum. Averring so the above suit has been filed. 3. The 151 defendant in his written statement admitted that plaintiff was partner from 1-4-1992 as per earlier deed EX.A-3. Till 1986 there was no document or any partnership agreement showing the existence of the partnership firm and denied that the plaintiffs having 1/4th share in the registered firm, namely M/s. Anand threatre. Sri Pandurangam s/o Dasappa Mudali and brother of plaintiff looking after the affairs of the firm and submitting the returns with full knowledge and confidence of all the partners. Plaintiff by using the signed papers fabricated the alleged partnership deed dated 1-4-1992. There is no mention of the said deed in the suit notice and it is an after thought. Registration Certificate was obtained keeping the 1 5t defendant under dark and played fraud with the help of brother of plaintiff-Pandurangam. The Shopping complex was constructed by defendant No.1 with his own funds, plaintiff and other partners are nothing to do with the business and they are only name lenders for the purpose of income-tax. Registration Certificate was obtained keeping the 1 5t defendant under dark and played fraud with the help of brother of plaintiff-Pandurangam. The Shopping complex was constructed by defendant No.1 with his own funds, plaintiff and other partners are nothing to do with the business and they are only name lenders for the purpose of income-tax. They subscribed simply as name lenders without any investment, as they are also income tax assesses and no entry could be found out on that date in their accounts submitted to the income-tax department. Plaintiff never invested any amount nor had anything to do with the theatre after the partnership deed EX.A-3 dated 13-3-1989 lapsed and the collusion between defendants 1 to 3 has been denied. The partnership deed dated 1-4-1992 is fabricated one got up by Sri Pandurangam out of ill-will and distress and plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have no right either in the business of the threatre or in the shopping complex, as they are only name lenders and they have no right over the property. Since partnership is at will and any dispute can be resolved by clause 16 of the partnership deed, suit is not maintainable and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement supporting the claim of the 15t defendant pleading that he is only name lender and nothing to do with the business of Anand Theatre and he is not a necessary party to the suit, whereas the 3d defendant supported claim of the plaintiff in all respects. 5. With theses pleadings the lower court settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of 1/4th share in the firm M/s. Anand Theatre? (2) Whether the Cine complex was constructed from the joint business or it was constructed by the 1st defendant out of 1st defendants own funds? (3) Whether defendants 1 and 2 are liable to render accounts in respect of the Anand theatre firm from 1-4-1993 to 1-4-1995 and for further period and to pay the plaintiff his 1/4th share income and interest thereon at 24% p.a. (4) Whether the 15t defendant is the absolute owner of Anand Theatre and Cine Complex? (5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? and an additional issue was also framed with regard to maintainability of the suit in regard to arbitration clause. 6. (5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? and an additional issue was also framed with regard to maintainability of the suit in regard to arbitration clause. 6. To substantiate the plea of the plaintiff he himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-27 and on behalf of the defendants D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 7. The lower court after going through the oral and documentary evidence answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit with costs. 8. Aggrieved by the same present appeal is filed raising several grounds, briefly stated that suit as such is not maintainable, as the parties agreed to resolve the dispute as per the arbitration clause under the partnership deed and without passing a preliminary decree straightaway final decree cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff. When the registered sale deed - Ex. B-2 clinchingly proves that 1st defendant alone is the owner of the property, which he is in possession, it cannot be treated as partnership property as there was no partnership in existence on the date when the property was purchased and the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/41h share in the theatre, and the decree granted cannot be sustainable. But the plea of maintainability, in view of arbitration clause, has not been canvassed in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants. When the plaintiff pleaded partnership deed dated 1-4-1992, unless the partnership deed is registered with the Registrar of Firms he cannot maintain the civil suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff without seeking dissolution of firm which is mandatory under section 69 of the Act. When the partnership is at will agreement EX.A-4 amounts to dissolution and re-constitution, which is mandatory under Section 69 of the Act. Dissolution of firm is pre-condition for taking the accounts and the decree passed is not in conformity with Order XX Rule 15 CPC. The findings on issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not germane to the rules. The lower Court erred in placing reliance on Exs.A-5 to A-25 which are produced in the form of secondary evidence, unless the plaintiff explained the reasons why primary evidence cannot be produced the same cannot be used. The findings on issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not germane to the rules. The lower Court erred in placing reliance on Exs.A-5 to A-25 which are produced in the form of secondary evidence, unless the plaintiff explained the reasons why primary evidence cannot be produced the same cannot be used. In the absence of any agreement between the partners no interest can be claimed and the lower court is not justified in awarding interest. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff while refuting the submission made by the appellants would contend that when the earlier partnership deed is registered under EX.A-2 as per the certificate of registration under EX.A-1; on the death of plaintiffs father he was inducted into partnership business under Ex.A-3; the deed EX.A-4 is executed and there is no re-constitution of the firm except the remuneration mentioned for the management of the firm. Once the 1st defendant accepted Exs.A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 as correct and the parties to the partnership executed the sale deed while transferring the property, since they have a right in the property, it is not open for the defendant No.1 to contend that other partners will have no right in the partnership property. Exs.A-5 to A-8 mortgage deeds; Exs.A-22 to A-25 discharge of the mortgage amount and the date of release of the documents clearly disclose that partnership was constituted and running the business. Further, it was contended that without seeking dissolution of firm partners can seek rendition of accounts by placing reliance on Gangadhar Madhavrao Bidwai v. Hanmantrao Vyankatrao Mungale. When a specific plea was taken in para 7 of the plaint about the income of the partnership business, which has not been denied by the defendants, it deems that the same has been admitted by placing reliance on Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co.1, United News of India v. T.S. Bhagavanulu2 and accordingly he tried to sustain the decree passed for mesne profits. 10. In view of rival contentions made by the counsel on either side the points that emerge for consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the suit as such filed by the plaintiff without registering the partnership deed, EX.A-4 is maintainable? (2) Whether it is necessary for the plaintiff to seek dissolution of the partnership for rendering the accounts? 10. In view of rival contentions made by the counsel on either side the points that emerge for consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the suit as such filed by the plaintiff without registering the partnership deed, EX.A-4 is maintainable? (2) Whether it is necessary for the plaintiff to seek dissolution of the partnership for rendering the accounts? (3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower court is in tune with Order XX Rule 15 CPC? 11. It is the simple case of the plaintiff that his father and defendants 1 to 3 constituted a firm which was doing business and running cinema theatre-Anand Theatre. The partnership was registered for the first time under Ex.A-2; on the death of the father of the plaintiff it was reconstituted on 13-3-1989 under EX.A-3 and the plaintiff was shown as partner of the firm in the register and there is no change in the constitution of the firm except the deed entered between the parties as required under the Income Tax Act. 12. The 1st defendant in his evidence has admitted about registration of the partnership in 1986 and execution of three partnership deeds, viz., Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4. According to him, accounts were settled upto 31-3-1993 and till date partnership was continuing. He being the managing partner, on his behalf and on behalf of defendant No.3 removed two partners, viz., plaintiff and defendant No.2 from the firm from 1993 and since from 1-4-1993 he (defendant No.1) and defendant No.3 alone are partners. The removal of plaintiff and defendant No.2 was informed to the income-tax department. He also admitted that all the contents of Exs.A-2 to A-4 are correct and filing of caveat petition showing him as sole proprietor after receipt of the notice from the plaintiffs advocate. 13. Plaintiff in order to prove his claim got marked Exs.A-1 to A-27 to show that all the partners-father of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3 contributed for construction of theatre of the partnership. The mortgage deeds executed under Exs.A-5 to A-8 are filed and the sale of 401/2 cts. of land under 13 sale deeds under Exs.A-9 to A-21 are also filed. Out of sale proceeds they discharged mortgage debt, which is evident from Exs.A-22 to A-25. The mortgage deeds executed under Exs.A-5 to A-8 are filed and the sale of 401/2 cts. of land under 13 sale deeds under Exs.A-9 to A-21 are also filed. Out of sale proceeds they discharged mortgage debt, which is evident from Exs.A-22 to A-25. A suggestion was made to him in the cross-examination that in all the partnership deeds there is arbitration clause and partnership was maintaining two accounts, one for income-tax purpose and another for self accounts which has been denied by the plaintiff and it was also suggested that accounts upto 1993 were maintained by his brother-Pandurangam in which income is clearly shown as 60,000/-. 14. Defendant No.1 admitted about execution of six mortgage deeds by himself, plaintiffs father and fathers of defendant Nos.2 and 3; he discharged the mortgage deeds and discharge deeds were taken from all the four persons. He also admitted about sale of 34% cts. out Ac.1.76 cts. through registered sale deeds - Exs.A-9 to A-21; himself and other partners were running unregistered firm prior to 1986 and he was the managing partner from 1986 till date of his evidence. 15. Defendant No.3 in his cross-examination stated that his father has purchased the property but the sale deed was obtained in the name of defendant No.1 and execution of partnership deed and sending it for registration. 16. Ex.A-4-partnership deed, which amounts to dissolution and reconstitution under Section 42 of the Act and unless the partnership deed is registered as contemplated under Section 59 the suit as such is not maintainable. For the said proposition he placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E. John3, wherein the Supreme Court while considering the bar for maintaining suit under Section 69 of the Partnership Act held that Section 69 is mandatory in character and its effect is to render a suit by a plaintiff in respect of a right vested in him or acquired by him under a contract which he entered into as partner of an unregistered firm, whether existing or dissolved, void. In other words, a partner of an erstwhile unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of Section 69. 17. In other words, a partner of an erstwhile unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of Section 69. 17. The same is misplaced to the facts of the present case, since it is not pleaded that there is any material alternation of the registered partnership firm under Ex.A-3, which was reconstituted in the year 1989 on the death of plaintiffs father. 18. It is well settled that dissolution and reconstitution of partnership are of two different legal concepts. Dissolution puts an end to the partnership, but reconstitution keeps it subsisting, though in another form. Dissolution followed by some of them though in another form. Dissolution followed by some of the erstwhile partners taking over the assets and liabilities of the dissolved partnership and forming themselves into a partnership is not reconstitution of the original partnership. The partnership formed after dissolution is a new partnership and not a reconstitution of the old partnership. A reconstitution of a firm denotes a structural alteration of the membership of the firm, by addition or reduction of members and an incidental redistribution of the shares of the partners, which is evident from EX.A-3. On the death of plaintiffs father on 11-10-1988 he was inducted into partnership under the partnership deed. EX.A-4 dated 1-4-1992 is only a notice of structural alternation of the membership of the firm under Section 63 (1) of the Act which necessitated to give effect to the amendments to the Finance Act, 1992 with regard to interest clause and remuneration of the managing partners with effect from 1-4-1992. Incorporating the same EX.A-4 was executed among the existing partners and the structural alteration has been registered with the Registrar of Firms in EX.A-1. 19. It is beneficial to note the statutory provisions of the Partnership Act. Section 4 of the Act defines Partnership as under: "Partnership" is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Further, Section 17 of the Act envisages the rights and duties of partners in the following terms: 17. Section 4 of the Act defines Partnership as under: "Partnership" is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Further, Section 17 of the Act envisages the rights and duties of partners in the following terms: 17. Rights and duties of partners Subject to contract between the partners- (a) After a change in the firm:- Where a change occurs in the constitution of a firm, the mutual rights and duties of the partners in the reconstituted firm remain the same as they were immediately before the change, as far as may be; (b) After the -expiry of the term of the firm, and - Where a firm constituted for a fixed term continues to carry on business after the expiry of that term, the mutual rights and duties of the partners remain the same as they were before the expiry, so far as they may be consistent with the incidents of partnership at will; and (c) xxxxx Chapter VII of the Act deals with Registration of Firms. Section 63 is with regard to recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm in the following terms: 63. Recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm:-(1) When a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm, every incoming, continuing or outgoing partner, and when a registered firm is dissolved, every person who was a partner immediately before the dissolution, or the agent of every such partner or person specially authorized in this behalf shall, within a period of 90 days from the date of such change or dissolution, give notice to the Registrar of such change or dissolution, specifying the date thereof; and the Registrar shall make a record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms, and shall file the notice along with statement relating to the firm filed under Section 59. (1-A) Where a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm, all persons, who after such change are partners of the firm, shall jointly send an intimation of such change duly signed by them, to the Registrar, within a period of 90 days from the date of occurrence of such change and the Registrar shall deal with it in the manner provided by Section 61. (2) xxxxxxxx 20. (2) xxxxxxxx 20. In Sharad Vasant Kotak v. Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda4 on the death of one of the partners his wife was admitted as partner in the firm and on such admission another deed of partnership was made consisting of existing partners and their respective shares, but induction of new partner on the death of old partner was not brought to the notice of the Registrar of Firms till November, 1992; on the said date another partnership deed was brought into existence. Later another partner died in September 1994, which was also not intimated to the Registrar of Firms. At that stage, one of the partners after issuing notice of dissolution of the firm filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm before the original side of the Bombay High Court and later he moved an application seeking permission of the Court to carry out certain amendments to the plaint. The defendants contested that on the death of one of the partners when a new partnership deed was made the registration already given to the Firm ceases its validity and the partnership must be deemed to be unregistered one. Therefore, the suit was hit by Section 69 (2-A) of the Partnership Act, which prohibits filing of a suit as per the amendment effected by Maharashtra Government. The same was found favour by the trial Judge that Section 69 (2-A) of the Act creates a bar on the threshold of the filing of the suit for the relief covered and suit as such filed by the plaintiff was incompetent and accordingly amendment could not be permitted and consequently rejected the application. Aggrieved by the rejection of the amendment plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench which allowed the appeal permitting the amendment. Questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench the defendants carried the matter in further appeal. The Supreme Court after considering various judgments held that changes in the constitution of the Firm will not change registration once made. In other words, it is not required that every time a new partner is inducted fresh registration has to be applied and obtained. The Supreme Court after considering various judgments held that changes in the constitution of the Firm will not change registration once made. In other words, it is not required that every time a new partner is inducted fresh registration has to be applied and obtained. However, information about changes has to be given penalties under Section 69 of the Act and also approved the ratio laid down by this Court in Maddi Sudarsanam v. Borogu Viswanadham Brothers" wherein this Court held as under: "The second condition laid down in Section 69 (2) is also satisfied. The persons now suing Le., the present partners are shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm, though the same Register shows two other partners, one of whom died and the other retired. It may be that the fact of retirement of one of the partners and the death of another should have been notified to the Registrar under Section 63 (1) as the said events effected a change in the constitution of the firm. But the default made by the firm is not, in not so notifying, of any relevance in considering the question of the maintainability of the suit under Section 69 (2). There is the essential distinction between the constitution of a firm and its dissolution. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 63(1) may have other consequences, but under Section 69 (2) only two conditions should be complied with by a firm to enforce a right arising from a contract and those two conditions are complied with in the present case." 21. Thus on a careful consideration of the entire facts and the law as aforementioned, this Court does not found any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit as such is not maintainable for want of registration of partnership deed-Ex.A-4. The same is accordingly rejected. Point No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of plaintiff. Point Nos.2 and 3: 22. It was nextly argued that dissolution of a firm is pre-condition for rendering the accounts and unless the dissolution is ordered Commissioner cannot be appointed for rendition of accounts. For the said proposition he placed strong reliance on Madanmohan v. Uttam Singh6 and T. Savariraj Pillai v. M/s. R.S.S. Vastrad & Co.7. Point Nos.2 and 3: 22. It was nextly argued that dissolution of a firm is pre-condition for rendering the accounts and unless the dissolution is ordered Commissioner cannot be appointed for rendition of accounts. For the said proposition he placed strong reliance on Madanmohan v. Uttam Singh6 and T. Savariraj Pillai v. M/s. R.S.S. Vastrad & Co.7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that dissolution of the firm is not necessary to seek rendition of accounts. 23. Admittedly in Madanmohan v. Uttam Singh6 suit itself was filed for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. The only thing, which remains to be settled, was question relating to distribution of profits and rendition of accounts in terms of Section 48 of the Act. In essence the suit was for accounts and value for jurisdiction and how it is to be valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, and advalorem court fee shall not be paid was the controversy in the above case. The same do not support the submission of the plaintiff. 24. Section 44 (d) of the Act is an enabling section, which authorizes the court to dissolve the firm at the suit of the partner, if the court comes to the conclusion that meeting of the partnership was never held after execution of the partnership deed in spite of repeated requests by the plaintiff, managing partner did not show him the accounts; confidence between the partners i.e., plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant on the other found lost. 25. It is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in para-6 of the plaint that since three years defendants 1 and 2 who are managing partners have turned hostile to the plaintiff and successfully evading in rendering accounts to the plaintiff and they are misappropriating the entire income derived from the partnership business. In para 7 it was asserted that the business is now fetching Rs.30,000/- per month and major portion of the income being adjusted towards debts till 1991 and since from 1993 onwards defendants have colluded together and misappropriated the entire income. The said fact has been totally denied by the defendants. Defendants also denied about execution of partnership deed dated 1-4-1992.ln the reply notice dated 21-12-1994 it was stated that under the new partnership deed-Ex.A-3 plaintiff and others are only name lenders and plaintiff has no right in the partnership business. The said fact has been totally denied by the defendants. Defendants also denied about execution of partnership deed dated 1-4-1992.ln the reply notice dated 21-12-1994 it was stated that under the new partnership deed-Ex.A-3 plaintiff and others are only name lenders and plaintiff has no right in the partnership business. In view of the said hostile attitude taken by the defendants the court in exercise of residuary power under Section 44 (g) of the Act can dissolve the firm subject to compliance under Order XX Rule 15 CPC from the future date. 26. Defendant No.1. stated that partnership deeds Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4 are correct and accounts were settled upto 31-3-1993, plaintiff and defendant No.3 were removed from 1-4-1993; himself and defendant No.2 entered into new partnership of which he is looking after the accounts of the firm. Since it is a partnership at will and 1st defendant pleaded in his evidence on 18-11-1998 that partnership has been dissolved and fresh partnership is constituted, it amounts to notice of dissolution of firm. There is no averment in the written statement to that effect, but in evidence it is stated that firm is dissolved on 1-4-1992 and it amounts to issuance of notice of dissolution of firm. 27. Having regard to the said fact though the suit is for rendition of accounts, once it is pleaded that there is reconstitution of the firm with the remaining partners after excluding plaintiff and another partner it amounts to dissolution by notice on the date of deposition i.e., 18-11-1998 which is a notice to the other partners. Thus even when the plaintiff does not specifically plead for dissolution of firm, he is still entitled to relief for dissolution on the basis of case made out by the defendants provided the claim is not barred by limitation. As already held the defendants evidence of dissolution itself is notice, since partnership is at will, the appeal is a continuation of suit, decree for dissolution and rendition of accounts can be substituted in accordance with Order XX Rule 15 CPC. 28. As already held the defendants evidence of dissolution itself is notice, since partnership is at will, the appeal is a continuation of suit, decree for dissolution and rendition of accounts can be substituted in accordance with Order XX Rule 15 CPC. 28. Order XX Rule 15 CPC clearly postulates that where a suit is for the dissolution of a partnership, or the taking of partnership accounts, the Court, before passing a final decree may pass a preliminary decree declaring the appropriate shares of the parties, fixing the day on which the partnership shall stand dissolved or be deemed to have been dissolved, and directing such accounts to be taken, and other acts to be done, as it thinks fit. 29. Having regard to the fact that decree passed by the lower court is not in tune with under Order XX Rule 15 CPC and partnership firm stands dissolved with effect from 18-11-1998 and plaintiffs share is declared as 1/4th along with defendants 1 to 3, the following decree is substituted. 30. The firm was dissolved from the date of evidence of defendant No.1 i.e., 18-11-1998, so defendant No.1 has to account for profit and loss to the plaintiff till 18-11-1998 and the share of the plaintiff is 1/4th in the partnership business. He should be paid profits to the extent of 1/4th share after the accounts were settled and after all the debts due by defendant No.1 are paid and the amounts due to defendant No.1 are recovered, and it is also further ordered that all the accounts shall be produced before the Commissioner to be appointed by the lower court by the 1st defendant firm regarding: 1. An account of the credit, property and assets now belonging to the said partnership; 2. An account of the debts and liabilities of the said partnership; 3. An account of the dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant after his induction. 4. The lower court is directed to appoint a Commissioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before whom defendant No.1 is ordered to put forth the above material and who submit a report to the court. Thereby the lower court can pass a preliminary decree effectively. 4. The lower court is directed to appoint a Commissioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before whom defendant No.1 is ordered to put forth the above material and who submit a report to the court. Thereby the lower court can pass a preliminary decree effectively. Having regard to the said fact, the Commissioner shall submit the report within six months from the date of his appointment and on filing such report the lower court shall dispose of the suit within six months thereafter. 31. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs