(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order which was passed in a suit between the ex-partners of a dissolved partnership firm for accounting. One Om Prakash Agrawal has filed the suit against Fateh Chand claiming that there was a partnership firm between them in the name of M/s. Fateh Chand and Sons and the same had been dissolved by a notice given by the defendant to the plaintiff before the institution of the suit. The said firm was said to have carried on business at Indra Mill Compound, Jeoni Mandi, Agra. It was alleged that godowns for storing the goods were also taken at Indra Mill Compound, Jeoni Mandi, Agra, Johns Mills No. 2, Jeoni Mandi, Agra and in Nand Bhawan (Old Mahalaxmi Oil Mills) at Jeoni Mandi, Agra and at other places. It was further alleged that the partnership firm also opened a retail shop in the name of M/s. Joint Trade Corporation at Shyam Market Jeoni Mandi, Agra. It seems when the suit was filed, the plaintiff moved an application for the appointment of a Commissioner who should prepare an inventory of the partnership assets and for signing the account books. The court allowed the said application. The Commissioner went and prepared inventories but he was resisted when he went to the godown situate at Nand Bhawan, Jeoni Mandi, Agra. Thereafter, one Naresh Chand, son of the defendant Fateh Chand, moved an application dated 28th April, 1975 (34-C) and therein he claimed that the court's order appointing the Commissioner to prepare an inventory in respect of godown at Nand Bhawan was not justified as he was the sole owner of the goods and articles kept therein and the alleged partnership had no concern with the same. He further claimed that the business in the name of M/s. Joint Trade Corporation was being carried on by him as the sole owner thereof and the same was not the branch of the alleged partnership firm as alleged in the plaint.
(2.) THE trial court by its impugned order under revision rejected the said application and feeling aggrieved, Naresh Chand has come up in the instant revision to this court and in support and opposition thereof, I have heard learned counsel for the parties.