LEKH RAJ Vs. KASHMIRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by the Plaintiffs is directed against the order dated 1.10.2009 passed by the Learned District Judge, Una whereby he allowed the appeal of the Defendants and set aside the order of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amb, dated 25.6.2009 whereby the Learned trial Court had restrained the Defendants from taking exclusive possession of the operations of the firm titled M/s Maa Durga Bhatha Company Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, HP and from exclusively selling finished product of the same till disposal of the main suit.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the present Petitioners alongwith one Karam Chand. The case of the Plaintiffs was that they alongwith Defendant No. 1 -Kashmiri Devi, Hardayal Singh and Rattni Devi had entered into a partnership on 1.4.1993 and constituted a firm known as M/s Maa Durga Bhatha Company Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una. The three Plaintiffs and Rattni Devi had 20% shares, whereas Hardayal Singh and Defendant No. 1 -Kashmiri Devi had 10% share each in the partnership. It was alleged that the firm worked in a proper manner till October, 2008. Hardayal Singh who also used to work in the firm as an accountant became ill and voluntarily retired from the firm. At this stage, Kashmiri Devi -Defendant No. 1 requested that her elder son Defendant No. 2 -Rajmer Singh be adjusted in the firm as accountant. This request was accepted by the other partners. However, according to the Plaintiffs thereafter Defendant No. 1 in connivance with Defendant No. 3 started interfering in the business of the firm and tried to forcibly dispossess the Plaintiffs from the property of the firm. It was thus prayed that a decree be passed restraining the Defendants from taking exclusive possession, forcibly occupying the office and selling the product (pucca bricks) of the firm.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Defendant No. 1, she with the consent of all the partners took a decision to restart the business by creating new infrastructure. She alongwith Defendant No. 2 and 3 collected Rs. 32 lacs and created new infrastructure and since invested Rs. 32 lacs to restart the new business. Now the Plaintiffs wanted to grab the same. It was also alleged that the Plaintiffs were running their own business of brick kiln, in the vicinity of the area. The Defendants also filed an application asking the Plaintiffs to produce the accounts of the partnership.