(1.) It is a classic case where the parents have been compelled to approach the Court against the son who are at loggerhead in as many as in 10 litigation. The case in hand emanates for adjudication of the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") in a suit seeking dissolution of the firm known and style as M/s Vicky Handloom WB-66, Bazar Peer Bodla, Jalandhar City and for rendition of accounts.
(2.) Mr. Kunal Mulwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant submits that he is adopted son of the respondentplaintiffs and in the year 2002, the business in the name and style aforementioned was started in a shop which was taken on lease from Punjab Wakf Board. In this regard, partnership deed dated 11.09.2002 consisting of parties as partners was entered into, in essence, the respondent-plaintiffs to the extent of 10% share each and petitioner-defendants 80%. Thereafter, Richa Sidana, wife of the petitioner to whom he was married to on being maltreating by the respondent-plaintiffs being parents was compelled to file a criminal complaint. In this process, the respondent-plaintiffs started interfering into peaceful use and occupation of the shop which ultimately led to the dissolution of the partnership deed dated 31.03.2012. The liabilities and assets of the parties were settled. The petitioner-defendant, who was owner in possession of the property aforementioned started running his own business as a Proprietor in the name of M/s Vicky Handlooms. However, on 14.05.2013, the present suit had been filed.
(3.) During the pendency of the suit, another application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of receiver to take the assets of the firm was moved but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 13.02.2014. However, the aforementioned application has erroneously been allowed, whereby, the petitioner-defendant has been restrained from preventing the plaintiffs from participating in the affairs of the firm.