K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) I. A. 9998/93 is for the appointment of Receiver with reference to the business M[s. Kidar Nath Mohinder Nath, defendant No. 4, a partnership firm Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers. The partnership consisted originally the Narendra Nath Vs. Sh. Mohider Nath plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and their mother Smt. Krishna Piara. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 each had 15% share and the mother had 40% share in the partnership. It is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that after the death of the mother the defendants 1 to 3 had taken the share of the mother on the basis of an alleged will, which has not been proved yet, and if it is taken that the mother died intestate the plaintiff would become entitled to 25% share. ( 2 ) I do not want to dilate on various allegations and counter allegations by the parties, inasmuch as in any event the plaintiff s 15% share in the partnership is admitted by defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff is claiming dissolution of the partnership business. The contention of the learned counsel for defendants, inter-alia, is three fold; (1) that normally Receiver is not appointed with reference to the running business; (2) as even according to the plaintiff he disassociated himself from the partnership from 1985; and (3) he himself had written number of letters to the banks that he had disassociated himself from the partnership and. therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the appoint of Receiver. ( 3 ) THE defendants 1 to 3 have also filed an application I. A. 351/95 praying "in the interest of justice, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may He pleased to hold that the partnership firm is not at Will and the plaintiff has retired from the partnership firm. This Hon ble Court may also be pleased to direct the payment of his share in accordance with the partnership deed. " I am afraid that this cannot be acceded to when the question whether the partnership is at Will or whether the plaintiff has retired from the partnership can be decided only at the time of the trial of the case. " I am afraid that this cannot be acceded to when the question whether the partnership is at Will or whether the plaintiff has retired from the partnership can be decided only at the time of the trial of the case. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff would state that till he was in the partnership the partnership was making huge profits and after the defendants 1 to 3 prevented him from participating in the business the profits have come down and the liabilities have increased and defendants are likely to increase the liabilities so that the entire burden can be put on the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also stated that the defendants 1 to 3 had drawn moneys from the partnership while the partnership does not provide for any withdrawing of any amount towards salary. There are various acts of commission and omissions alleged by the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 3 and vice-versa. ( 5 ) AS I observed above, all these things cannot be gone into at this interlocutory stage. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for defendants 1 to 3 submitted that his clients are willing to give an undertaking that they would not alienate the agricultural land, which is an asset of the partnership, or not encumber the same pending the disputes between the parties. He also stated that his clients Sh. Mohinder Nath, the first defendant is a tenant under the shop where business is carried on and his client will not surrender the tenancy and his clients defendants 1 to 3 are prepared to give an undertaking to this Court that they will pay all the liabilities of the creditors of the firm and the plaintiff need not have any apprehensions about the same. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the proposals made by the learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3 are not bona fide and really they would not be sufficient safeguards for the plaintiff ( 8 ) I do not want to make any comments on this. With due deference to the learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 and the counsel for the plaintiff. I have adverted to the above arguments to place on record what transpired before me in Court. With due deference to the learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 and the counsel for the plaintiff. I have adverted to the above arguments to place on record what transpired before me in Court. ( 9 ) IT is well settled that when a partnership is dissolved, and the plaintiff in this case seeks dissolution of the partnership. in order to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff a Receiver has got to be appointed for the purpose of winding up the partnership and for settlement of accounts. Accordingly. I appoint Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocate, 816. Sector 5, R. K. Puram. New Delhi. The Receiver shall be paid an initial remuneration of Rs. 5,000/-by the plaintiff. The Receiver after completing the work shall file a Memo claiming additional remuneration. With reference to the expenditure that the Receiver might have to incur, the Receiver shall seek the direction of the Court giving the details of the expenditure. ( 10 ) I. A. 9998/93 is allowed. I. A. 351/95 is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of defendants 1 to 3 to urge the points, mentioned therein, at the time of the trial of the case. ( 11 ) BOTH the I. As are disposed of.