VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Courts below whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be the partner in firm known as M/s Subhash and Company, Kurukshetra. As per the partnership deed dated 19.12.2003 it was claimed by the plaintiff that the firm was allotted the work of handing and transporting of Food Grains of FCI from Taraori to Delhi in the year 2004. The security was also deposited by the firm. It was claimed that the firm had done the work worth Rs. 29,00,000/- and a final bill for payment was sent to the office of FCI. It was further claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- had been withdrawn by defendants No. 1 and 2 and the same has been deposited in a new account in ICICI bank. It was claimed that a bogus partnership deed was furnished by defendants No. 1 and 2 in which the name of the plaintiff has been deleted therefrom on the ground that he had left the firm. It was claimed that the original partnership has not come to an end and accordingly a suit for declaration was filed in which an application was filed seeking temporary injunction against the FCI from releasing payment to defendants No. 1 and 2. The defendants No. 1 and 2 in the joint written statement claimed that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as new partnership deed had been executed on 10.5.2004 between defendants No. 1 and 2 and the earlier partnership deed stood cancelled. It was also claimed that plaintiff had given a writing with an intention to withdraw from the firm M/s Subhash and Company, Kurukshetra in the form of affidavit duly attested by a Notary Public. Thus, it was claimed that the plaintiff has no interest in the firm. It was further claimed that after the plaintiff petitioner left the firm the work was undertaken by defendants No. 1 and 2 of transporting the food grains of FCI from Taraori to Delhi. It was further claimed that the security was deposited by defendant No. 2 and not by the plaintiff. The defendant No. 3, FCI filed written statement by taking a preliminary objection that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file and maintain the suit against defendant FCI. It was also claimed that defendant No. 3 had no concern with the alleged dispute between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2. The FCI further claimed that the tender for appointment of handling and transporting of goods from Taraori to Delhi was given as per the partnership deed dated 10.3.2004 in which the plaintiff petitioner was not partner. Similar stand was taken by the Branch Manager of ICICI defendant No. 4.
(3.) THE learned Courts below came to the conclusion that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff petitioner and the Bank qua the transportation of goods of FCI from Taraori to Delhi. It was also held that the contract of transporting of goods was independent of the contract of handling and transporting the goods of HAFED department and District Food and Supplies Controller from Taraori Mandi to its godown. Thus, the learned courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no prima facie case. The learned Courts below also came to the conclusion that mere correspondence at the address known M/s Bharat Rice Mills owned by the plaintiff did not prove any contract between the plaintiff and the FCI. The learned Court further came to the conclusion that even if the dispute raised by the plaintiff petitioner was genuine then the plaintiff had a right to seek a remedy by filing a suit for rendition of accounts against defendant No. 1 and he has no right to claim relief against the remaining defendants. It was also claimed that the plaintiff would suffer no loss or injury if the injunction would not be granted to him as remedy of rendition of accounts was always available to him. In support of this finding the reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hazrat Surat Shah Urdu Education Society v. Aboul Saheb, 1988(5) SLR (SC) 768.;