JASWANT KAUR VIRK Vs. GURDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been directed against the order dated 7-2-1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. By this order the learned Additional District Judge has upheld the order dated 22-3-1995 passed by the learned trial Court by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 20, Rule 9, Order 41, Rule 1 and Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) Mr. Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed an eviction petition against the respondent No. 1 on 23-11-1993 on the ground that the said respondent had not been paying the rent since 1990. He submits that in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it was pleaded that there is no lease agreement between the petitioner and the said respondent and on the contrary there was a partnership deed between the parties and as such the eviction petition was not maintainable. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner filed a suit against respondent No. 1 for winding up of the partnership and also for recovery of Rs. 1,05,000/- being the share of the petitioner for the period April, 1990 to 30-11-1993. Along with this suit the application under Order 20, Rule 9 for appointment of the Local Commissioner, Order 41, Rule 1 for appointment of the Receiver and under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for interim injunction was filed by the petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the order of the learned trial Court has been upheld by the learned lower appellate Court, as stated herein- above. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel of the petitioner has drawn my attention to para 9 of the impugned order passed by the learned lower appellate Court and submits that the petitioner as per terms of the partnership deed, was entitled to fixed monthly profits and he was not to share the losses of the firm. He submits that such a partnership where one of the partners need not share the losses, is permissible under law and in support of this submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in . He further submits that in any case the partnership had been admitted by the respondent himself and as such the prayer of the petitioner for appointment of local commissioner and receiver and for interim injunction are valid. The learned counsel further submitted that though the land in dispute has been acquired by Chandigarh Administration in the year 1989 but the husband of the petitioner Hakam Singh (who is respondent No. 2 in this petition) had filed the writ petition bearing CWP No. 14058 of 1990 and this writ petition was admitted on 8-11-1990 and dispossession was prayed. It may be noted here that this writ petition is still pending.