ARUN KUMAR ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has instituted the present suit for dissolution of partnership M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills and rendition of accounts. This order will dispose of two applications of the plaintiff under order 40 Rules 1and2 and Order 39 Rules 1and2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (IAs. 11791. / 92 and 1943/93) and another application of the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I. A. No. 13325/92) and an application on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I. A. No. 12241/92) for vacating the ex parte interim order dated 21/09/1992. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF defendant No. 2 are real brothers and defendant No. 3 is their mother. Shri K. L. Wadhwa was fathcr of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and husband of defendant No. 3. He had started business of M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. The. said business was being carryied on by him in partnership vide partnership deed dated 16/08/1988. Defendant No. 1 Ashok Kumar Wadhwa a relation was also a partner in the said partnership firm. Mr. K. L. Wadhwa died on 10/07/1991. The partnership was reconstituted vide a deed of partnership dated 11/07/1991 with the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as its partners having equal shares. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that he is being ousted from the business of the said partnership and defendants are carrying on business according to their sweet will. The plaintiff is not even being allowed to enter the partnership premises. It is further alleged that the defendants are frittering away the assets of the partnership. Huge quantities of stocks and material belonging to the firm is alleged to have been clandestinely removed by the defendants from the premises of the firm. The assets and stocks and material belonging to the firm are a lleged lo have been disposed of by the defendants from the premises of the firm. The assets and stocks and materials belonging to the firm are alleged to have been disposed of by the defendants and the funds are being mis-appropriated. The plaintiff has also mentioned in the plaint that he had come to know on 10/08/1992 of a will executed by his father Shri K. L. Wadhwa dated 27/05/1991. The assets and stocks and materials belonging to the firm are alleged to have been disposed of by the defendants and the funds are being mis-appropriated. The plaintiff has also mentioned in the plaint that he had come to know on 10/08/1992 of a will executed by his father Shri K. L. Wadhwa dated 27/05/1991. According to the said will, the share of Shri K. L. Wadhwa in the said partnership devolved on defendants 4 to 5 who are minor sons of the plaintiff. Therefore, it has also been alleged that induction of defendant No. 3 as a partner in place of Shri K. L. Wadhwa was itself wrong and defendants 4and 5 were entitled to become partners in view of the said will. However, during the course of hearing of these applications, this aspect of the plaintiff s case was not pesued: ( 3 ) IN view of the allegations in the plaint, an ex parte interim order was passed on 21/09/1992 which is reproduced as under: In the meanwhile, the defendants are restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from entering the premises of the partnership firm and from exercising his rights as partner of the said firm. The defendants arc also restrained from transfering, alienating or disposing of the partnership assets like plant and machinery etc. They will maintain proper accounts of all transactions relating to stocks, material and goods of the partnership. ( 4 ) SOONTHEREAFTER defendants 2and3 applied under Order 39 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the said order. Notice of the said application was issued to the plaintiff through counsel. As per proceedings recorded on 1st October, 1992, it appeared that the counsel for the plaintiff avoided service of the notice. Further, the averments contained in the application of the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure gave an impression that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Court. Therefore, ex parte interim order dated 21st September, 1992 was modified on 1st October, 1992 to the extent that the said order in so far as it restrained the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from entering the premises of the partnership firm and from exercising the rights as partner of the said firm was vacated. Plaintiff thereafter applied for restoration of the original ex parte interim order vide his application l. A. No. 13325/92. Plaintiff thereafter applied for restoration of the original ex parte interim order vide his application l. A. No. 13325/92. The plaintiff also moved another application being I. A. 1943/92 for appointment of a Receiver. ( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 moved an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit. However, so far as the applications for ex parte orders and for appointment of Receiver regarding the partnership are concerned, defendant No. 1 had nothing to say because the defendant No. 1 admited that he retired from the partnership w. e. f. 1st December, 1992. The applications of the plaintiff arc, therefore, contested by defendants 2 and 3 alone. The case of the defendants is that there was a family settlement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 recorded on 29th November, 1991 taking effect from 30th November, 1991. In pursuance of the said family settlement, the partnership firm M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills fell to the share of defendants 2 to 3 having equal shares therein. All the assets and liabilities of the said firm thus devolved on defendants 2 to 3. Certain other assets were distributed between the parties. In pursuance of the said family settlement, a. deed of reconstitution of partnership was executed between the parties on 1st December, 1991. Accounts were drawn upto 30th November, 1991 and were settled and signed by the parties in token of acceptance thereof. A cheque for Rs. 29,244. 32 paise was given to the plaintiff in pursuance of the settlement of and account as his share. The plaintiff executed a receipt in token of receipt thereof. Thus, according to the defendant the plaintiff ceased to have any interest in the affairs or business of the partnership M/ s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. It is farther submitted on behalf of the defendants that they got the firm registered as a partnership between defendants 2 and 3 with the Income Tax Department and elsewhere in pursuance of the reconstitution of the partnership. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 retired from the firm and business of the firm continued to be with defendants 2 and 3 as its only partners. As a part of settlement, an area of 4000 sq. yards out of the land of the partnership firm at Loni Road, Shahdara had to be given to defendant No. 1. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 retired from the firm and business of the firm continued to be with defendants 2 and 3 as its only partners. As a part of settlement, an area of 4000 sq. yards out of the land of the partnership firm at Loni Road, Shahdara had to be given to defendant No. 1. For this purpose, a deed of relinquishment was executed and duly registered on 3rd April, 1992 whereby the plaintiff relinquished his interest in the said land. Further, in order to give the said share of land to defendant No. 1 a deed of partition was executed between defendants l to 3 on 3rd April, 1992. Thus according to the defendants, the plaintiff has no already retired from the partnership and his account stands settled. ( 6 ) THE defendants have stressed the fact that the plaintiff is a party to the documents regarding his retirement from the partnership, statement of account and reconstitution of the partnership firm. He has suppressed these material facts from the Court by not disclosing them in the plaint and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable reliefs sought for by him. Had these facts been disclosed in the plaint, Court would not have granted any ex parte interim order in favour of the plaintiff. ( 7 ) COMING to the merits of the case, the main question to be determined is whether the plaintiff continue to be a partner in the partnership firm M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills? If the plaintiff is held to be continuing as partner of the said firm, he will be with in his rights to seek protection of this Court, so that he is not ousted from the business of the firm. On the contrary if it is found that the plaintiff has ceased to be partner of the firm, no interim relief can possibly be granted to the plaintiff. For the purposes of answering the said question, I consider the Memorandum of Family Settlement to be the most crucial document. The said document is also crucial for the reasons that it is an admitted document. The plaintiff has challenged the other documents i. e. the deed of reconstitution of partnership and the statement of account as well as deed of relinquishment as forged and fabricated documents. The said document is also crucial for the reasons that it is an admitted document. The plaintiff has challenged the other documents i. e. the deed of reconstitution of partnership and the statement of account as well as deed of relinquishment as forged and fabricated documents. However, so far as the Memorandum of Family Settlement is concerned, it is not disputed. The case of the plaintiff about this document is that this was a draft which was brought to him and. he had signed the same in good faith. It is also admitted that the document is signed by all the parties who are parties to the document. The only defence put up by the plaintiff qua this document is that this was only a draft. I fail to appreciate the emphasis being put on behalf of the plaintiff to the word draft typed at the top of the document. The original of this document was produced by defendants 2and 3 during the course of hearing for perusal of the Court. The original contains the word draft at the lop, though the photocopy of the sad document filed by the defendants does not have the word draft . The defendants who produced this document on record had no business to file a tempered copy of the document on record. If the document from which the photocopy was prepared had the word Draft typed on it, the same should have appeared in the photocopy also. The photocopy of a document means that it is exact copy of the document and the parties cannot be permitted to produce a different version of the photocopy. Four persons are parties to this settlement dated 29/11/ 1991. They are : 1. Mrs. Raj Kumari Wadhwa, defendant No. 3. 2. Mr. Mahinder Pal Wadhwa, plaintiff. 3. Mr. Rajesh Wadbwa, defendant No. 2. 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Wadhwa, defendant No. L ( 8 ) ALL the parties are close relations. The document starts with the recital that Krishan Lal Wadhwa had been carrying on family business of steel rolling under the name of M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. Some other business carried on and controlled by said Krishan Lal are mentioned thereafter. There is a schedule attached to this document as schedule-I which contains a list of properties and businesses left behind by Krishan Lal Wadhwa. Some other business carried on and controlled by said Krishan Lal are mentioned thereafter. There is a schedule attached to this document as schedule-I which contains a list of properties and businesses left behind by Krishan Lal Wadhwa. Then it is recorded : "and WHEREAS in difference to the wishes of the parties, all the properties/business of the family irrespective of the name in which the same had been purchased, or was recorded in official records or carried on, were valued and properties/business mentioned in Schedule-II were assigned and acquired by the parties as sole owners thereof and each part renounced her/his/their claims on the properties/business allotted to the other party (s ). ( 9 ) AND WHEREAS the parties hereto acted upon the said oram settlement and carried on their respective obligations therein. Further item Nos. 3, 4 and 11 in the settlement, are worth note here "3. That each party renounced her/his/their share (s) in the properties/ businesses allotted tootherparty (s) and conveyed to each of them separately her/his/their right, title and interest therein so as to constitute each party to the said oral settlement, the sole and absolute owner of the properties/ businesses allotted to that party free and discharged from all claims and demands of the others thereto or concerning therewith, as from the date of the said oral settlement. 4. That the parties hereto had agreed that the said oral settlement shall cancell all previous arrangements family properties/businesses and that the said settlement shall not be open to challenge on any ground whatsoever. 11. That party No. 2 and 3 will not interfere in the. day to day business activities of Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. Also their power lo sign cheques on behalf of Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. Case with effect from the dale of this deed. "in Schedule-11 of the said settlement, the respective properties/businesses have been allocated to the respective parties. Both Schedule-land Schedule II are signed by all the parties. The allocation of the properties/businesses in Schedule-11 is as under : SCHEDULE-II Properties/businesses allotted to each party. PARTY NO. 11 (SHRIMATI RAJ KUMARI) 1. 50% share of Delhi Steel Rolling Mills, (land measuring around 11,000 sq. yards.) 2. Agricultural land at Rathora. 3. Residential and Commercial Building at 1166/8, Nai Wala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 4. Residential plot at Budhvihar. 5. Residential plot at Faridabad, Green Field Colony. PARTY NO. PARTY NO. 11 (SHRIMATI RAJ KUMARI) 1. 50% share of Delhi Steel Rolling Mills, (land measuring around 11,000 sq. yards.) 2. Agricultural land at Rathora. 3. Residential and Commercial Building at 1166/8, Nai Wala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 4. Residential plot at Budhvihar. 5. Residential plot at Faridabad, Green Field Colony. PARTY NO. 2 (SHRI ASHOK KUMAR WADHWA) 1. 4000sq. yards land of belonging to Deihi Steel at Loni Road, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. 2. Plot of Delhi Steel Rolling Mills at Johri Pur, Delhi approximately measuring 4000 sq. meters. PARTY NO. 3 (SH. MAHINDER PAL WADHWA) 1. Kamal Industries Gases and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. 2. Residential House at A-75-A,kirti Nagar, New Delhi. 3. Hired property at Calcutta under use of Kamal Iron and Steel Co. , PARTY N0. 4 (SHRI RAJESH WADHWA) 1. 50% share of Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. sd/- sd/- sd/- sd/- party N0. 1 PARTY NO. 2 PARTY N0. 3 PARTY NO. 4 ( 10 ) THE aforesaid recitals in the family settlement clearly show that the business of M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills fell to defendants 2 and 3 in equal shares alongwith its assets and liabilities. As per familv settlement, no party after the settlement was entitled to interfere in each other s business or other assets. Therefore, the plaintiff ceased to have any interest in the affairs of the partnership and was not entitled to interfere in the business and assets of the said partnership. According to the defendants, it was in pursuance of this settlement, that the deed of reconstitution of partnership was executed on 01/12/1991. Accounts of partnership were settled between the parties upto 30/11/1991 and were duly signed and the plaintiff was given his share of Rs. 29,244. 32 paise which as per accounts was due to him in his capital account. The plaintiffs case about these documents is that they have been fabricated by the defendants as part of their design to oust the plaintiff from brother-in-law of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and son-on-law of defendant No. 3 cocrced the plaintiff to sign certain blank papers and according to the plaintiff these documents have been fabricated on blank papcrs got signed from him. This plea of the plaintiff can be tested from various angles. ( 11 ) FIRSTLY, it is a bald allegation without any details or particulars. This plea of the plaintiff can be tested from various angles. ( 11 ) FIRSTLY, it is a bald allegation without any details or particulars. As per requirement of law and the rules of pleadings, for a plea of coercion, undue influence, full particulars are required to be given other wise the plea is liable to be ignored. The plaintiff has failed to give any particulars or details about this plea. ( 12 ) SECONDIY, the plaintiff has shown nothing on record nor even he has averred any where that he took exception to this alleged mis-behaviour of defendants and T. R. Gulati. There is nothing to, show that the plaintiff ever complained of this to any authorities or lodged any F. I. R. or even protested about this to the defendants. He never wrote to the defendants that they had obtained signatures on blank papers from him. ( 13 ) THIRDLY, 1 have perused each page of the documents i. e. the Deed of Reconstitution of partnership dated 01/12/1991, 14 sheets of papers regarding accounts (each signed by all the concerned parties) and the Deed of Relinquishment dated 03/04/1992 which a registered document. The manner in which the signatures of the parties appear on each page shows that it cannot. be said that these documents have been fabricated on blank papers. The way the documents are signed by the parties shows that the material was very much in existence on each page before it was signed by the parties. To illustrate, three sheets of documents regarding Balance Sheet and Trading and Profit and Loss Account are typed horizontally while other sheets are typed vertically. The horizontal sheets are signed by the parties at place where they ought to have been signed. The same is the position regarding the vertical sheets. If somebody was to obtain signatures on blank papers, so much pre- planning would not be possible in normal course. ( 14 ) FOURTHLY Ashok Wadhwa, one of the parties, who retired from partnership as per these very documents, has not disputed his signatures thereon. Nor he disputes the fact that he retired from partnership on the basis of these very documents. ( 15 ) FIFTHLY, the plaintiff executed a deed of cancellation on 03/07/1992 and got it registered at Calcutta. This deed relates to cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed executed at Delhi on 03/04/1992 by the plaintiff. Nor he disputes the fact that he retired from partnership on the basis of these very documents. ( 15 ) FIFTHLY, the plaintiff executed a deed of cancellation on 03/07/1992 and got it registered at Calcutta. This deed relates to cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed executed at Delhi on 03/04/1992 by the plaintiff. Still, there is no whisper of any challenge to these documents. The Relinquishment Deed dated 03/04/1992 is a registered document and for purposes of registration the plaintiff s photograph is affixed at the top of first page of this document. This shows that plaintiff must have been party to execution and registration of this document. ( 16 ) LASTLY, at this stage I have to only consider the prima-facie value of parties case. When the plea is that blank papers were got signed it follows that the signatures on the documents are not being examination and proof. At this stage for tbe reasons stated above, it is difficult to ignore the documents. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff made following submissions in support of the plea that the plaintiff contunies to be a partner in the firm: 1) Ashokwadhwa filed a suit on 31/01/1992 in which he stated that on 0l/12/1991, he was not in Delhi. 0l/12/1991 is the date of the Deed of Reconstitution of partnership which purports to bear the signatures of the erstwhile partners alongwith Ashok Wadhwa. From this, the learned counsel wants to show that the document is not genuine because Ashok Wadhwa could not have possibly signed on 01/12/1991. I have considered this plea and l am of the view that the mere fact that Ashok Wadhwa was not in Delhi on 01/12/1991 can not render this document totally invalid or forged or fabricated. It transpired during the course of hearing that Ashok Wadhwa left Delhi on 01/12/1991. It may be possible that he signed this document just before leaving Delhi. Secondly, the statement in the plaint on the part of Ashok Wadhwa does not bind the other defendants. Defendants may still be able to show that the document was signed on the date it bears. Therefore, I am unable to give too much importance to this plea at this stage, 2) Under the family settlement, the Kirti Nagar House has been allocated to the plaintiff. Defendants may still be able to show that the document was signed on the date it bears. Therefore, I am unable to give too much importance to this plea at this stage, 2) Under the family settlement, the Kirti Nagar House has been allocated to the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff had already been living in the said house with his family since the lifetime of his father. As per the will of the father the said house had been bequeathed in favour Of the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no question of the said house being allotted to the plaintiff in the family settlement. Moreover, it is submitted that a notice dated ll/09/1992 was issued to the plaintiff by the counsel for defendant No. 3 calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the Kirti Nagar house. From this, it is submitted that the family settlement was not acted upon. Otherwise when the house was allotted under the family settlement to the plaintiff, why should such a notice be given? This plea of the plaintiff over-looks another plea raised by the plaintiff himself in para No. 18 of the plaint. In the said para of the plaint, the plaintiff has submitted that on 10/08/1992, he came to know through Shri Suresh Chand, Chartered Accountant that his father Shri K. L. Wadhwa left behind a Will dated 27/05/1991. It is under the said Will that the plaintiff claims that the Kirti Nagar house was exclusively bequeathed in his favour. Defendants 2 and 3 have denied the said will and submit that the same is forged. One thing is clear that as per plaintiff s own case he was not aware of the will till 10/08/1992. The family settlement is dated 29/11/1991. Therefore, on the date of the family settlement, the plaintiff only knew that the Kirti Nagar house was one of the properties left behind by his father and as such it was one of the assets of his father available for distribution between his legal representatives. Therefore, the said property was treated as part of the asset left behind by Shri K. L. Wadhwa and was distributed amongst his heirs. So far as the notice dated 11/09/1992 is concerned, the same has been pleaded by the plaintiff only in a rejoinder. Defendants had no opportunity to deal with the same. Therefore, the said property was treated as part of the asset left behind by Shri K. L. Wadhwa and was distributed amongst his heirs. So far as the notice dated 11/09/1992 is concerned, the same has been pleaded by the plaintiff only in a rejoinder. Defendants had no opportunity to deal with the same. The defendants deny having got issued any such notice. This will again be a matter of proof. Taking an overall view of the whole thing, it appears to me that the knowledge of the will to the plaintiff on 10/08/1992 is possibly the basis of the entire dispute and this litigation. Earlier, the plaintiff felt satisfied on getting the share out of his father s estate as per the family settlement. He got the Kirti Nagar house and one of the firms M/s Kamal Industrial Gases exclusively. Apart from this he got the tenancy rights in a property at Clcutta. Without going into the question as to whether the Will is genuine, since the plaintiff is acting on the basis of the wil, I am considering the case of the plaintiff keeping thewill in mind. When the plaintiff had the knowledge of the Will, he must have though that the Kirti Nagar house was given to him in any case independently under the Will. Therefore, he thought, why should he allow that house to be set off against his share in the partnership firm M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills? This appears to be the reason for the plaintiff starting to re-agitate the whole thing. After the 01/12/1991 the plaintiff kept quiet. There was no action either in the form of a letter or a visit to the business premises of the firm to look after the alleged interest in the firm. For the first time, it is stated in the plaint that in May, 1992 the plaintiff visited the factory premises of the partnership and was prevented from entering inside. There is nothing on record to show what was he doing about his interest in the partnership during the 6th month preceding the said date. ( 18 ) SO far as the question of family settlement being acted upon or not, I may note that the family settlement records that it has been acted upon because the document dated 29/11/1991 is a memorandum of settlement arrived at on an earlier date. ( 18 ) SO far as the question of family settlement being acted upon or not, I may note that the family settlement records that it has been acted upon because the document dated 29/11/1991 is a memorandum of settlement arrived at on an earlier date. During the course of hearing, it was admitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the business of Kamal Industrial Gases which had fallen to plaintiff s share under the settlement is being exclusively managed and controlled by the plaintiff, though some dispute about the transfer of its shares by the defendants was raised. Even if some shares have not been transferred, the fact remains that the plaintiff is exclusively enjoying the said business. Tle plaintiff is admittedly exclusively occupying the Kirti Nagar house and is enjoying the same. About the tenancy rights of the Calcutta property, which fell to the plaintiffs share under the settlement, there is some controversy between the parties. One party saying that it had not been made over to the plaintiff while the other party denied the same. Be that as it may, the fact that M/s Kamal Industrial Gases and Kirti Nagar house are being exclusively enjoyed by the plaintiff is enough to say that the family settlement has been acted upon. In these circumstances, even if notice dated ll/09/1992 was issued on behalf of the defendants, the same will not make much difference. ( 19 ) IT is argued that various amounts are owed by the partnership to the plaintiff and his close family members i. e. his wife and sons. There is no provision in the family settlement about the same. From this, the plaintiff wants to show that the family settlement does not completely settle all the affairs between the parties. In reply the defendants submit that the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm have been taken over by the continuing partners i. e. defendants 2 and 3 and if anything is owed by the partnership to an party it will be taken care of by the continuing partners. Moreover, the Family Settlement was only between the partners and not an overall settlemcnt between. the partners and the creditors of the Firm. ( 20 ) NEXT it was argued that in the Deed of partition executed between defandants 1 to 3 on 3rd April, 1992 there is nomention of the family settlement. Moreover, the Family Settlement was only between the partners and not an overall settlemcnt between. the partners and the creditors of the Firm. ( 20 ) NEXT it was argued that in the Deed of partition executed between defandants 1 to 3 on 3rd April, 1992 there is nomention of the family settlement. On the other hand, partnership dated llth July,1991 has been mentioned. Similar plea is raised on the basis of the Deed of Relinquishment dated 03/04/1992 where also there is a recital about the plaintiff being a partner as per the partnership deed dated ll/07/1991. Such recitals for the purposes of giving background can not be said to be admissions of existence of certain state of affairs on the given date. Therefore, nothing turns on such recitals in these documents. ( 21 ) ANOTHER point urged on behalf of the plaintiff in this behalf is that if the plaintiff had retired on 30/11/1991 as per the Deed of Reconstitution dated 01/12/1991, where was the need to ask the plaintiff to execute a Deed of Relinquishment on 03/04/1990. Simple answer to this argument is that in the Deed of Family Settlement, parties had undertaken to do everything to completely effectuate separation of the other parties. It was in pursuance of this that Deed of Relinquishment seems to have been executed. ( 22 ) THE cru% of the matter is that the Family Settlement dated 29/11/1991, which is | an admitted document, stares in the face of the plaintiff. Prima-facie I am of the view that it is difficult for the plaintiff to avoid the same. The existence of the said document prima-facie demolishes the plaintiffs claim to be continuing as partner in the firm. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff never received the payment of Rs. 29,244. 32 paise on settlement of accounts. A photocopy of the receipt executed by the plaintiff in this bebalf has been placed on record. The receipt is signed in a manner that partly the signatures are on pa per while partly they are on the revenue stamp. This shows that the plaintiff was fullyconscious of the fact that he was executing a receipt. If he had been physically forced to sign the same, the plaintiff should have taken the very first opportunity to dispute and disown the receipt, which he never did. This shows that the plaintiff was fullyconscious of the fact that he was executing a receipt. If he had been physically forced to sign the same, the plaintiff should have taken the very first opportunity to dispute and disown the receipt, which he never did. The defendants submit that the cheque mentioned in the receipt was handed over to the plaintiff before he executed the receipt and if the plaintiff has not encashed the cheque, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of this. This aspect even if what the plaintiff says ma be taken as true, is too insignificant in the face of other facts noted and discussed herein before. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also referred to a statement of account of the plaintiff as on 31/03/1992. In the said statement, a sum of more than Rs. 5 lakhs is shown to the credit of the plaintiff at the end of November, 1991. From this, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that it cannot be said that only Rs. 29,244. 32 paise was due to the plaintiff on 30/11/1991 In reply to this, learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 submits that a sum of more than Rs. 4 lakhs was debited to each partner thereafter on account of losses. Besides this there was another debit on account of Income tax deductions and after taking the same into account the balance left in plaintiff s account was Rs. 29,244. 32 paise which was paid to the plaintiff. ( 23 ) ON the question of appointment of receiver, learned counsel for the plaintiff brought to my. attention the following judgments: 1. T. Krishnaswamy Chetty Vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty and others, AIR 1955 Madras 430. 2. Nihal Chand Vs. Ram Niwas, AIR 1968 Punjab 523. 3. Vidya Devi Vs. Mani Ram etc. , AIR 1974 Rajdhani Law Reporter 346. 4. Prem Prakash Kapoor Vs. Gobind Ram Kapoor, AIR 1976 Jammu and Kashmir 37. ( 24 ) THE principles for appointment of receiver in case 0f partnerships have been these judgments. However, I do not intend to discuss these cases in view of the fact that prima-facie, I have found that the plaintiff has ceased to be a partner of the firm M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. Therefore, the question of appointment of receiver in the facts of the present case does not arise. However, I do not intend to discuss these cases in view of the fact that prima-facie, I have found that the plaintiff has ceased to be a partner of the firm M/s Delhi Steel Rolling Mills. Therefore, the question of appointment of receiver in the facts of the present case does not arise. The plaintiff in these circumstances, cannot seek to interfere in the day to day affairs of the partnership nor he can seek appointment of a receiver with respect to a partnership in which he has prima-facie ceased to be a partner. ( 25 ) BEFORE concluding I must note the argument on behalf of the def endant regarding suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff was aware of the family settlement at least which is an admitted document, It is further submitted that the plaintiff was fully aware of the Deed of Reconstitution of the partnership as well as of the documents relating to finalisation of accounts which arc signed by all the partners on each page. The plaintiff ought to have disclosed these documents in the plaint. The plaint is totally silent aboul these documents. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any discretionary relief. I have already expressed my view regarding the plea of the plaintiff of having signed blank documents. In view of the prima-facie finding about the veracity of the said plea of the plaintiff. I am of the view that the non-disclosure of the documents, at least the family settlement is a very consideration while deciding these appiications. The plainliff should have at least disclosed the family settlement and set out his case about the same. Non-disclosure of material documents is fatal in a case of the present type. For these reasons also, I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. ( 26 ) THE result of the above-discussion is that the player of the plaintiff for appointment of a receiver is declined. However, in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff if he finally succeeds, the direction to the defendants restraining them from alienating or disposing of the partnership assets like plant and machinery should continue. The defendants are further directed to maintain proper accounts of the hasiness of partnership firm including its stocks and other materials. IAs. However, in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff if he finally succeeds, the direction to the defendants restraining them from alienating or disposing of the partnership assets like plant and machinery should continue. The defendants are further directed to maintain proper accounts of the hasiness of partnership firm including its stocks and other materials. IAs. 11791/92, 12241/92, 13325/92 and 1943/93 stand disposed of in these terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs. ( 27 ) I may note here that the above view is only for the purpose of deciding the above applications. It is no expression of final opinion in the case. It is a prima-facie view which will be subject to the final decision in the suit.