M C SHARMA Vs. B C SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the affidavits exchanged and the Annexures thereto.

(2.) The parties were carrying on a partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Amber Guest Business House. On 1-4-1985 the appellant filed Suit No. 89 of 1985 on behalf of the firm against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from creating obstacles in the partnership business. An ad interim stay order was granted. On 19th April, 1985 the respondent No. 1 served a notice dissolving the firm. The interim injunction granted earlier was vacated. The respondents 1 and 2 moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the appellant from carrying on his own business in the disputed premises. The application was allowed on 13th May, 1985. The appellant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by this Court on 21st May, 1985. Earlier the appellant had filed Suit No. 120 of 1985 for a declaration that he is the owner of the disputed premises which he purchased Benami in the name of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the user of the premises for the business of the appellant. The application for temporary injunction was rejected on 13-5-1985. The appellant filed an appeal against the order. The appeal was admitted on 24-5-1985. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellant as a partner. 2A. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Suit No. 184 of 1985 against the appellant and respondent No. 3 for a permanent injunction restraining them from carrying on any business in the disputed premises. The injunction application has been allowed and in the present appeal the said order has been challenged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the offer made by him in para 19(iv) of the counter affidavit filed by him to the affidavit in support of the application for temporary injunction before the trial Court and also in view of the provisions of S. 37 of the Partnership Act, the trial Court should have considered his offer and should have permitted him to carry on the business on such terms as it deemed fit and proper. He further submitted that whereas the appellant will suffer irreparable injury as he will be deprived of his livelihood if he is not permitted to carry on his business, while respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will not suffer any loss which can not be compensated in terms of money. He also referred to S. 53 of the Partnership Act and submitted that he does not want to do business for his own benefit and the trial Court has rejected his offer to share the profits.