1. ' By a partnership deed executed on 1st April, 1960 Haji Mohammad Umar (since deceased) and his three sons, Mohammad Zaki Ahmed, Mohammad Mohsin and Mohammad Anwar agreed to carry on the business of partnership under the name and style of Messrs Haji Mohammad Umer & Sons.
2. Haji Mohammad Umer and Mohammad Mohsin were to receive a share of 5 annas each while Mohammad Zaki and Mohammad Anwar had a share of 3 annas each. Out of the said partners Mohammad Mohsin, being the eldest son was to be the Managing Partner to conduct all the affairs of the partnership business including proper maintenance of the accounts. The said firm was also registered on 7-12-1961 with the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies. Mohammad Zaki used to receive a monthly pocket allowance of Rs,300 upto 1st April, 1963. He did not receive his share of profits out of the said business. Of the partnership since the year 1963. He called upon Mohammad Mohsin, the Managing Partner and other partners to settle his account. On their failure to do so he filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the other partners in the Court of XXXIInd Civil Judge, Karachi. His plaint was registered as Suit No, 1251 of 1971 of that Court.
3. ' The defendants in the suit denied all the allegations made in the plaint and claimed that the partnership firm was in fact dissolved on 31-12-1970 and the plaintiff ceased to be partner in the firm with effect from 1-1-1971. The accounts of the partnership were duly checked by all the partners and accounts finally settled. A deed of dissolution was drawn and duly executed by all the partners, All the partners acknowledged therein that accounts were checked, settled and balances shown on that date reflected the true position of the partners, ' The parties led evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing the parties the trial Judge dismissed the suit on 31-5-1978. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree passed by the Trial Judge Mohammad Zaki Ahmed filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Karachi which was ultimately heard by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi. During the hearing of his appeal it was mainly contended on his behalf that the deed of dissolution (Exh.12) was not executed by him, the documentary evidence produced by him established that the partnership was not dissolved and no public notice intimating dissolution of the firm was published in any of the newspapers to support that in fact dissolution of the firm had taken place. Such contentions did not carry weight with the appellate Court. It was held that the deed of dissolution (Exh.12) was in fact signed by the appellant and the partnership stood dissolved. The deed of dissolution itself expressly provided that the accounts between the parties were duly settled. As the result of such conclusions the question of dissolving the partnership and settling the accounts did not arise. The appellate Court by its judgment dated 23-7-1983 dismissed the appeal. The applicant thus being unsuccessful before the two Courts has now impugned the judgment passed in appeal by this application under section 115, Civil. Procedure Code.
4. ' Mr. M.M. Beg the Advocate appearing for the applicant has referred. To clause S of the deed of dissolution which reads as under:- "5, That the amount standing to the credit of the parties of the 1st and 3rd part shall be paid by the party of the 2nd part in the following manner:-
(a) The amounts payable by way of taxes and other liability on behalf of the said parties shall be paid by party of the second part and debited in their respective accounts.
(b) After the aforesaid payment, the balance shall be paid to the respective parties within three years or earlier at the sole discretion of the party of the second part."
5. ' According to this deed of dissolution Muhammad Mohsin is the second party while applicant Muhammad Zaki is the third party. By referring to such clause in the deed of dissolution Mr. M.M.
6. Beg, Advocate tried to argue that the account were in fact not settled and were postponed till after the payment of the taxes and other liabilities on behalf of the parties were met. He, therefore, argued that both the Courts below have in fact incorrectly decided the suit.
7. ' Mr. S.H. Rizvi, Advocate appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 3 referred to clause 2 of the deed of dissolution which clearly provided that the parties had checked the books of account and were satisfied with the same and the balances shown in against the respective parties reflected the true position of the accounts. He alternatively contended that the suit was premature as according to clause 5 of the deed of dissolution reproduced above respondent Muhammad Mohsin was to make payment of the amounts shown in the dissolution deed to the applicant within a period of three years after payment of taxes. The suit was filed before the expiry of that period. Consequently according to him applicant had no cause of action to institute the suit.
8. Both oral and documentary evidence recorded in the suit clearly establishes that the partnership firm was in fact dissolved on 31st December, 1970 and deed of dissolution executed by the partners, The deed of dissolution further indicates that all accounts were settled and each of the partners in fact recorded his such acknowledgement. Under such circumstances every partner knew the exact and ascertained amount that was payable. At best suit for recovery of specific amount could have been filed and not for dissolving the partnership firm and settling the account. The Advocate appearing for the applicant has not been able to point out any other ground that an enable this Court to disturb the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons this revision application is dismissed with costs.