JUDGMENT S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Final decree passed in a suit for dissolution of a firm and settlement of accounts is challenged in the appeal by some of the defendants (defendants 2, 3, 4 and 6). Respondents in the appeal are the plaintiff, first defendant and fifth defendant. 2. Final decree passed earlier in the suit was challenged before this court by defendants 2 to 6 together. Decree passed in respect of some of the matters involved, covered by A to E,K and L in the judgment, was confirmed, and with respect to the rest the case was remitted for consideration afresh. On such remission, with no further evidence placed by parties, reconsidering the matters which were directed to be gone into, the trial court again passed a final decree, and, it is now challenged in this appeal. Plaintiff and first defendant (respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal), both of them together, have filed cross objections to the extent they are aggrieved by the decree passed by the court below. Both the appeal and Cross Objections, after being heard together, are disposed under this judgment. 3. Though various grounds are raised in the memorandum of appeal touching upon various aspects involved in the case, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for appellants fairly submitted challenge against the decree is confined to the period fixed over the liability of second defendant, receiver appointed over the firm and its properties, in remitting monthly sum of Rs.20,000/- which was the sum fixed for payment every month on his appointment as receiver. In the previous decree passed by the court below under Clause(G) second defendant had been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.20,000/- till he handed over possession of factory and the premises in favour of the plaintiff and first defendant. In the appeal preferred against that decree clause (G) with some other clauses as well had been set side directing reconsideration of the questions involved thereof afresh. Now, the appeal and also Cross Objections, both of them, admittedly, are confined to challenges over the period for which second defendant receiver was directed to remit the monthly sum fixed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- on his appointment as receiver of the firm and its assets. Period fixed for such remittance under clause (G) in the judgment passed by the court below, and that alone, is under challenge. Period fixed for such remittance under clause (G) in the judgment passed by the court below, and that alone, is under challenge. When that be so, decree passed over other matters, covered by other clauses in the revised judgment rendered by the court below, which dealt with various aspects over the rights and obligations of parties to the suit in settling the accounts of the dissolved firm, do not require to be dealt with for disposal of this appeal. 4. Controversy requiring resolution in the appeal and cross objections over the correctness of the finding over the liability of 2nd defendant as receiver in the remittance of monthly sum fixed, which forms part of Clause (G) in the judgment, is very limited though conflicting and divergent case is canvassed thereof by the appellants and cross objections. 5. Second defendant was appointed as receiver of the firm during the trial stage imposing some conditions, one among them directing deposit of Rs.20, 000/- per month. The liability cast upon him to pay such monthly sum as receiver of the firm has been affirmed by the apex court in proceedings challenging his appointment. Controversy between the rival parties in the appeal is upto what period second defendant has to pay the monthly sum fixed as above. Second defendant has contended that his liability to make such remittance is only till the business of the firm continued, and it is disputed by the cross objectors (plaintiff and first defendant) contending that such liability continues till he is discharged from the office of receivership. Considering the liability of second respondent to pay monthly sum fixed, with reference to two applications moved by him before the court, both seeking his discharge from the office of receivership, the court below has held that he has to remit an amount of Rs.20,000/- upto 31.3.2003, the date of his second application for discharge. Case of the second defendant was that in August 2001 the business operation of firm stopped and, thereafter, he cannot be mulcted with liability to pay the sum of Rs.20, 000/- every month. That was resisted by plaintiff and first defendant contending that so long as receivership continued and he was not discharged from the office of receiver he has to remit monthly sum of Rs.20,000/-. That was resisted by plaintiff and first defendant contending that so long as receivership continued and he was not discharged from the office of receiver he has to remit monthly sum of Rs.20,000/-. Learned Sub Judge after taking note that no material was placed by both sides when the firm ceased to have business operation, and also, that even before the filing of second application by second defendant requesting his discharge the firm ceased to carry any business, has held that his liability to remit such sum continued only up to the date of that application i.e.31.3.2013. 6. Findings entered by the court below under Clause G of the judgment reads thus:- "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the second defendant to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as net profit till he handover the factory and machinaries. The second defendant has made deposit only upto July 2001. It is out of this deposit/remittance the provision has to be found for the liabilities such as Income Tax, Insurance, provident Fund, Gratuity, Bonus, Retirement Benefits due to the Employees and the interest of the amounts due to the parties after the second defendant has taken over the Receivership. The service benefits of the employees who has not filed any claim petition has also to be disbursed from the amount deposited in court. The second defendant was not discharged from his Receivership and his liability to deposit the amount of Rs.20,000/- will continue till the removal of the second defendant from the Receivership. The second defendant has filed an application IA.1050/02 on 30.5.2002 and in the affidavit he has averred that there is a liability of RS. 17, 00, 000/-. He has also prayed to discharge him from the Receivership. As the Appeal was pending before the Hon'ble High Court as A.S 119/98 he was not discharged. So the second defendant has to remit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the period from 2001 August onwards. He has stated that he has incurred a liability of Rs. 17,00,000/-. This liability was incurred during this period. So he has to pay this amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed him to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per month as net profit. The second defendant has also not adduced any evidence to show that he has stopped the business. The second defendant has filed an application on 31.3.2003 to discharge him from the liability to deposit Rs. So he has to pay this amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed him to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per month as net profit. The second defendant has also not adduced any evidence to show that he has stopped the business. The second defendant has filed an application on 31.3.2003 to discharge him from the liability to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per month. The second defendant has averred in the affidavit that he is not conducting the business in the factory. So the plaintiff and the first defendant had also not adduced any evidence to show that the second defendant is conducting the factory. So the second defendant is discharged from remitting the amount of Rs.20,000/- from 31.3.2003 onwards. The second defendant has to remit the amount of Rs.20,000/- upto 31.3.2003. The second defendant has defaulted deposit of the amount of Rs.20, 000/- from August 2001 to March 2003. The second defendant has to deposit that amount of Rs. 20, 000/- from August 2001 to 31st March 2003. If the defendant fails to deposit the amount that amount will be attached and taken from his share. The liability of the firm till 31.3.91, till the second defendant assumed charge as Receiver has to be paid from the court deposit. All the prior liabilities has to be paid from the court deposit. The second defendant has to pay the Tax, electricity charge, panchayat tax etc during his period of Receivership. The liabilities incurred during his period of receivership has to be paid by him as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed him to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as net profit. The liabilities of the firm found by the Advocate Commissioner as mentioned in schedule I to IV has to be paid from the court deposit, as they are the existing liabilities of the partnership firm. The amount mentioned in the third and fourth schedule has also to be paid from the court deposit. The service benefits of the employees, gratuity has also to be paid from the amount deposited in court. The current charge, panchayat tax and Employees State Insurance Corporation amount due for the period from 1992 has to be paid by the second defendant. The amount prior to 31.3.1991, the existing amount has to be paid from the court deposit. The service benefits of the employees, gratuity has also to be paid from the amount deposited in court. The current charge, panchayat tax and Employees State Insurance Corporation amount due for the period from 1992 has to be paid by the second defendant. The amount prior to 31.3.1991, the existing amount has to be paid from the court deposit. The service benefits of the employees and the existing liability of Rs.14,89,425.98 upto 31.3.91 has to be paid from the court deposit. The clause (G) is found accordingly." 7. Except the commission report filed by advocate commissioner appointed for settling the accounts of the dissolved firm, no material was produced in the final decree proceedings. Controversy projected over the liability cast upon the second defendant in remitting the monthly sum fixed on his appointment as receiver of the firm was decided by the court below examining the question till what point of time the firm operated its business activities. Under the preliminary decree passed the firm was declared as dissolved on 31.03.1991, the date of institution of suit. However, its business operation continued under the receivership of second defendant on conditions imposed over his appointment as receiver, which included remittance of Rs.20,000/- every month by him. He had moved two applications I.A.1050/2002 on 30.5.2002 and I.A.2028/2003 dated 24.3.2003, both of them, seeking his discharge. The firm had already stopped business with some other circumstances was presented by him for his discharge from receivership to relieve him from remitting the sum of Rs.20,000/- every month. In the second application he had contended that business operations of the firm were stopped before August 2001, the period from which default was committed by him in remitting the sum fixed, for relieving him from payment from that period. Other liabilities cast over the firm during the period of his receivership were also stated in his affidavit filed in support of the above application. After taking into account the liabilities incurred by the firm during the period of receivership of second defendant with the liability cast upon him in making monthly remittance of Rs.20,000/-, the court below has passed specific orders how such liabilities are to be discharged in clause(G). So far as the prior liabilities of the firm before second defendant assumed receivership it was ordered that they are to be paid from court deposits made by receiver. So far as the prior liabilities of the firm before second defendant assumed receivership it was ordered that they are to be paid from court deposits made by receiver. Liability incurred during the period of receivership of second defendant towards panchayat tax, electricity charges etc was directed to be paid by him. At the same time liabilities of the firm determined by advocate commissioner are directed to be paid from the court deposits. Further directions were also given that service benefits of the employees gratuity etc have also to be paid from the amount deposited. Similarly contribution due to the Employees State Insurance Corporation for the period from 1992, it was ordered, has to be paid by second defendant. A reading of the findings made under clause (G) indicate that liability of second defendant over the remittance of Rs.20,000/- per month fixed on his appointment as receiver was considered with liabilities of the firm, and how the same has to be discharged from court deposits made by the receiver. When no material was placed by cross objectors to show that the business operations of the firm continued even after filing of the second application by second defendant, that is 31.3.03, and, he was not discharged from receivership by an order of the court cannot be a ground to order him to remit the sum fixed till his discharge. He had moved more than one application seeking his discharge specifically contending that the firm has ceased to carry on any business operation. His receivership continued with no order of discharge cannot be the basis to mulct him with liability to remit the sum fixed on his appointment. 2nd defendant appointed as receiver was collecting the profits of the business operation of the firm when it was carried on formed the basis to direct him to pay Rs.20, 000/- every month. When the business operations of the firm ceased before filing of his second application, there is no merit in the challenge raised by the cross objectors that till the order of discharge is passed relieving second defendant from the office of receiver he has to pay the monthly sum fixed. When the business operations of the firm ceased before filing of his second application, there is no merit in the challenge raised by the cross objectors that till the order of discharge is passed relieving second defendant from the office of receiver he has to pay the monthly sum fixed. Similarly where the second defendant had failed to produce any acceptable material as to when the business operation of the firm ceased order passed by the court below directing him to pay monthly remittance till the date of his second application i.e. 31.3.2003 cannot be found fault with. 8. Learned counsel for Cross Objectors has advanced some arguments questioning the findings made by learned Sub Judge how liabilities of the firm are to be dealt with as ordered under Clause G of the judgment. Cross objections filed by them are confined to the period fixed by court below over the liability cast upon the second defendant to pay monthly remittance of Rs.20,000/- as receiver. When that be so, I find challenges canvassed against the findings entered by the court below how liabilities of the firm are to be adjusted, dealt with under Clause G of its judgment, cannot be entertained. Such challenges, if so available, should have been raised by a regular appeal if plaintiff and first defendant were aggrieved by the decree passed by the court below. When their cross objections are confined to challenges against the period for which second defendant has to pay the monthly sum fixed, and that alone, the arguments advanced to question other findings under clause (G) cannot be countenanced. Suffice to state that both the appeal and also Cross Objections are devoid of any merit. Appeal and Cross Objections are dismissed directing the parties to suffer their costs in both the proceedings.