- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen from the order dated 11.04.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) North, Lucknow rejecting petitioner's objection under Section 47 C.P.C. in Execution Case No. 22 of 1993 and the order dated 18.11.1997 passed by XIVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow dismissing petitioner's Civil Revision No. 52 of 1996 and confirming Executing Court's order dated 11.04.1996.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute may be narrated as under. A partnership came in existence on 21.05.1965 between Kewal Krishna Khosla, petitioner (now deceased and substituted by his heirs and legal representatives) and Som Nath (now deceased and substituted by his heirs and legal representatives) to carry on business of medicines and allied goods in the name and title of "M/s Chemical Traders". The business was to run in a shop forming part of building situate at Tulsidas Marg Chowk, Lucknow, owned by Som Nath. He (Som Nath) instituted Suit No. 134 of 1978 seeking following reliefs: "1. A decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for rendition of Accounts since 1965 till upto date of the Partnership business and after accounting a decree for Rs. 700/= (Rs. 500/= on account of Capital and Rs. 200/= on account of profits) or for such sum which may be found due to the plaintiff be passed in his favour against the defendant, subject to payment by the plaintiff additional Court Fee, it necessary. 2. That by means of a decree of a Mandatory Injunction, in favour of the Plaintiff against the defendant, the defendant be commanded to remove their possession from the shop fully described in para I of the plaint and restrain himself from obstructing in any manner the exclusive possession and use of the said shop, as enjoyed by the Deed of Partnership. 3. Costs of the suit be also awarded to the Plaintiff against the defendant. 4. Any other relief which may appear proper on the circumstances of the suit be also granted to the Plaintiff against the defendant."
(3.) PLEADING in the plaint are that plaintiff, Som Nath had communicated dissolution of partnership vide notice dated 01.03.1978 submitted to Kewal Krishna Khosla and thus rendition of accounts and restoration of individual partner's property was necessary.;