 |
| A suit for rendition of accounts |
Purpose: To seek a decree of civil court for rendition of account in case of
dispute between the parties for such an account.
Forum: Civil Court
Title: Plaintiff (a person who is seeking a decree for rendition of accounts)
V/S Defendant (a person against whom the decree is required)
SUIT FOR RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, DECLARATION, CANCELLATION OF DEED OF
PARTNERSHIP DATED 10.05.2019, STAMP PAPER NO. 1771 DATED 02.03.2022 AND
RECEIPTS, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Respectfully Sheweth:-
That the plaintiff law-abiding citizen of the country
and enjoying respectable life in the business community.
That the plaintiff and defendant had a good
relationship with each other. The defendant is running a business of Jazz
Franchise with the name style of “M/s Best Link Mobilink Franchise (7284) ”
situated at Shop No. I-184/B, Kareem Shopping Centre, Committee Chowk (hereinafter
referred to as suit franchise), and the defendant instigated the plaintiff to
invest money in his business, due to close relationship and trust, the plaintiff
agreed to make an investment in the aforementioned business of the defendant.
On 15.08.2016, the plaintiff paid an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- to the defendant as an investment in the aforesaid business
through a written agreement. Copy of the agreement is attached herewith for
kind perusal of this Hon’ble court. It is worthwhile to mention here that on
08.11.2017, the plaintiff paid a further amount of Rs.490,000/- to the
defendant through UBL bank Charsada Branch on demand of defendant for
purchasing of mobile phone cards, etc. (copy of deposit slip is attached
herewith)
That as per the terms and conditions of the agreement,
it was settled that profit will be shared between the parties with the ratio of
49% to the plaintiff while 51% to the defendant, whereas, the loss shall be
borne by both the parties equally.
That it is pertinent to mention here that the
plaintiff entered into the above-said business of the defendant as sleep/silent
partner, whereas, the defendant shall be bound to look after all the matter of
said business as well as to make profit and loss account and thereafter the
defendant bound to pay the profit to the plaintiff but during the initial
period the defendant took time from the plaintiff in order to reconciliation of
accounts, etc, but later on, the defendant failed to fulfill his part of the agreement
and always used delaying tactics with malafide intentions or ulterior motives
and never ever paid even a single penny to the plaintiff in the account of
profit or in any manner whatsoever.
On 10.05.2019, the defendant further established SN
pharmacy and Rs.14,00,000/- net cash from the plaintiff (Rs.10,00,000 for the
purpose of purchasing of medicine and Rs.400,000 for renovation) in presence of
witnesses namely Abdul Bais and Sartaj.
That on 10.10.2019, the defendant issued a cheque
bearing No. 0000193, amounting to Rs.11,85,000/- HBL, Murree Road Branch in favor
of the plaintiff with regard to profit, which cheque was presented by the
plaintiff before his bank but due to insufficient funds in the account of the defendant,
the same was dishonored, against which the lodged an FIR No. 120 dated
10.03.2020, offense U/S 489-F PPC P.S Charsada.
Thereafter, the defendant was arrested by the
concerned police and sent to judicial lockup during the arrest of the defendant,
Abu Zar s/o Gul Aftab, Shahzeb Khan s/o Sardar Khan, Tanveer son of Haji Malik Zahoor
Ellahi, Ali Muhammad s/o Shamraiz and Zart Ali son of Aftab Gul initiated
compromise proceeding and also took the surety of defendant for payment of
profit amount to the plaintiff through an affidavit No.1771 dated 02.03.2022,
upon which the defendant was bailout by the court of competent jurisdiction but
after getting bail, neither the
defendant nor his guarantors honored to the above-said affidavit and did not
pay the amount to the plaintiff. It is important to mention here that the
defendant sold out the SN’s pharmacy against the considerable amount of
Rs.2700,000/- without permission of the plaintiff or giving the share of the plaintiff.
That despite paying the profit amount, the
defendant prepared fake and fabricated receiving on a white page by incorporating
different amounts and different dates just to grab the profit and principle
amount of the plaintiff by way of blackmailing and harassing the plaintiff
illegally, unlawfully, and without due process of law or rendition of
accounts.
Thereafter, a number of times, the plaintiff
requested the defendant himself as well as through Jirga for a rendition of the
account and to give 49% profit since the inception of the partnership and also
to return the principal amount of Rs.69,90,000/- to the plaintiff and also get
cancel the partnership agreement, fake and fabricated receiving of plaintiff
along with receipts and affidavit No. 1771
but despite to accede the genuine and lawful request of the plaintiff,
the defendant started harassing, humiliating, blackmailing and threatening the
plaintiff for dire consequences. Now it also came into the knowledge of the plaintiff
that the defendant entered into a partnership with one Ali Asghar vide deed of partnership dated 10.05.2019 without due process of law as well as without
permission, consent, and rendition of account with the plaintiff, hence the
said partnership deed is liable to be canceled having no value in the eye of
law.
That the act of the defendant is totally illegal,
unlawful, improper, without any reason or justification which is not
sustainable in the eye of the law, and if the defendant succeeded to fulfill
his nefarious designs and act, then the plaintiff shall suffer an irreparable
loss, hence this suit.
That the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff
firstly when the parties entered into a business agreement, secondly when the
defendant failed to pay the profit amount to the plaintiff, and thirdly when
the defendant obtained bail on the basis of stamp paper No. 1771 his part of the
agreement, and finally a week ago when the defendant refused to accede the
request of the plaintiff and same is continuing day by day.
That the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff within
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court, the residence of defendant and business
under question is also situated under the limits of this Hon’ble court, hence
this Hon’ble court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the matter.
That the value of the suit for the purposes of
court fee and jurisdiction is fixed Rs. 20,000/- which is exempted from the
levy of court fee, however, after the decree the plaintiff is ready to affix
the court fee as per the order of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER:
In view of the above circumstances, it is, most
respectfully prayed that a decree for the declaration to the effect that the
plaintiff is a lawful partner in the business of the defendant and the
defendant is liable to be paid 49% profit since the inception of the partnership
business along with principle amount of Rs.69,90,000/- and the partnership dated 10.05.2019 along with fabricated receipts of
payment and stamp paper No. 1771 dated 02.03.2022 are void, void ab-initio and
having no value in the eye of law.
A decree for cancelation of partnership dated 10.05.2019 along with fabricated receipts of payment and stamp
paper No. 1771 dated 02.03.2022 is null and void.
A decree for a rendition of account of partnership
business from inception to up till now.
A decree for mandatory injunction by restraining
the defendant from further selling, alienating, changing the nature and
character of suit franchise or entering into any kind or partnership
deed/agreement and also be restrained from handing over possession of suit
franchise and pharmacy to third party or person regarding the suit Franchise
and S.N’s Pharmacy or harassing, humiliating and pressurizing the plaintiff in
any manner whatsoever, may kindly be passed in favor of plaintiff against the
defendant with costs.
Any other relief that this Hon’ble court deems just
and proper may also be awarded to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff Through Counsel
Verification:-
Verified on Oath (name of city and date may
be mentioned) that the contents of paragraphs are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief and whereas paragraphs are believed to be true.
…..Plaintiff
0 Comments