KUSUMA GUPTA Vs. SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an interim injunction granted by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur, restraining the appellants from either utilizing the machinery fixed in the concern Messrs Banda Khandsari Udyog, Shahjahanpur, or, from doing any business in the name of the same during the pendency of a suit instituted by Smt. Sarla Devi against the appellants and the respondents Nos. 2 to 5. It may be mentioned at the outset that the effect of the injunction issued by the Court below is that a running business has been brought to a standstill.

(2.) The suit was filed on December 23, 1985 for dissolution of a partnership firm called Messrs Banda Khandsari Udyog as well for directing the appellants to render accounts of the firm. Simultaneously with the suit the plaintiff filed an application under O.XL, R.I of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a receiver over the assets of the firm. By an ex parte order the Court below appointed a receiver against which order the appellants filed an appeal in this Court which is pending. In that appeal, this Court has passed an order suspending the operation of the order appointing the receiver but, at the same time, directed an advocate commissioner to prepare an inventory of the assets of the firm. It is after this order that the plaintiff filed the application for the ad interim injunction which was contested by the appellants. By the impugned order the plaintiffs' application has been allowed overruling the objection of the appellants.

(3.) Shortly stated, the material plaint allegations are that the plaintiff and Pushpa Devi (respondent No. 3), the appellants (arrayed as defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit) Satish Chandra, the defendant respondent No. 2 and Radheylal Gupta, defendant respondent No. 4, constituted a partnership firm on May 8, 1981 styled as Messrs Banda Khandsari Udyog, Shahjahanpur. The manufacture of Khandsari sugar was the business which the partners had agreed to engage in. The business continued without any trouble until 1983 whereafter a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants with regard to the accounts for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The plaintiff alleged that the appellants were responsible for the manipulations in the accounts as a consequence of which the plaintiff expressed a desire to dissolve the partnership firm and since the defendants were in possession of the accounts, the suit was filed for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts.