R D ALLOYS Vs. RAM NARAIN GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed toy Shri Prem Sagar Garg himself and also as partner of M/s R.D. Alloys, Jagadhari. It is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhari dated 8.8.1995. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge had allowed the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for appointment of a receiver. The trial Court directed that parties should file a list of persons who can be considered for appointment as receiver of the business. The appeal filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari on 1.5.1997. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondents-plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Petitioner No. 1 and plaintiffs 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2 in the revision petition) are real brothers. Respondents No. 3 is their mother. Ravinder Kumar Garg was also one of the plaintiffs. They were all carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s R.D. Alloys. Subsequently, Ravinder Kumar Garg had retired from the partnership on 1.4.1984 and respondent No. 3 had been inducted as a partnership in his place. The share of all the partners was 25 per cent.

(3.) Respondents' case was that terms and conditions of the old partnership were to be remained unaltered. Petitioner No. 2 obtained their signatures on certain blank papers for getting the partnership deed typed. Petitioner No. 2 incorporated certain clauses particularly 9, 13 and 15 in his favour. In this process he manipulated a partnership deed which was alleged to be void ab initio and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as well as the spirit of partnership. Subsequently, petitioner No. 2 stopped the entrance of the respondents in the business premises. The respondents-plaintiffs were not allowed access to the account books. They were completely ousted from the partnership business. Petitioner No. 2 was stated to have forged and manipulated the accounts. An apprehension was expressed that petitioner No. 2 may remove the records, machinery and other assets of the partnership. Accordingly, it was prayed that during the pendency of the suit an receiver be appointed to take charge of the firm alongwith accounts and bank accounts etc. He should take over the control of the management of the firm.