1969 PLP 68 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This petition is barred by one day but we condone this delay as the petitioners had, .it appears, been making attempts to file the petition within the period of limitation. Unfortunately, by the time the papers could be completed the offices of the Court had closed. The papers were actually presented at the residence of the Deputy Registrar at 8 p.m. Had he accepted them, the petition would have been ink time but since he did not do so and rightly insisted on the papers being filed in Court, the petition is barred ‑by one day Since the petitioners were diligent throughout, as already stated, we condors this delay. The petitioners seek special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, in a second appeal, upholding a preliminary decree for accounts in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. In the trial Court the defendant in the suit had, in his written statement, not only denied the existence of the partnership but had also alternatively pleaded that if a partnership was held to exist, then accounts should also be taken of a rival business which the plaintiff had started in the name of Paris Picture House under the provisions of section 16 (b) of the Partnership Act. The relevant provisions of this section read as follows :‑ "Subject to contract between the partners. (b) If a partner carries on any business of the same nature as and competing with that of the firm, he shall account for and pay to the firm all profits made by him in that business." Under this clause, it is contended, that the partners are under a duty not to carry on like businesses in the same field of competition. It is said that it is an elementary principle that a partner cannot without the consent of his other partners, carry on any business of the same nature in competition with that of the firm of which he is a partner. If he does so, he must account for and pay over to the firm all profits made by him in that business, and he must also make compensation to the firm for any loss occasioned thereby. The High Court has, however, repelled this contention on the ground that the defendant had failed to establish that any funds out of the firm London Picture House were invested in the firm Paris Picture House. It is contended that the High Court was clearly wrong in taking this view and a serious question of law arises, namely, as to the extent and nature of the liability of a partner under section 16 (b) of the Partnership Act. We are of the opinion that the above does raise a serious question of law of some general importance. Leave is, accordingly, granted to consider the above point only. Security Rs. 1,000'

00. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, no final decree will be passed in the suit although accounts of the firm may be taken and submitted to the trial Court. Leave granted.