JUDGMENT 1. - All the above three cases, two civil misc. appeals and one revision petition concerns in regard to the dispute between the common parties and against the order dated 2.6.1999 and 5.6.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bandikui Distt. Dausa. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has filed a civil misc. appeal No. 1223/1999 for quashing the orders dated 2.6.1999 and 5.6.1999, passed in the suit filed by M/s. Chaju Ram Chhitar Mal, the authorised dealer for sale of petroleum products for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for permanent injunction. 3. The facts narrated were that the license was issued in the name of the said firm which was renewed upto 31.3.2007. The firm was authorised dealer of petroleum product i.e. Petrol etc. It was submitted that Chhitar Mal was the Karta of Undivided Hindu Family and was doing the said business since 1955 and ever since of setting up the petrol pump either by himself or the person nominated by him. Chhitarmal had died on 19.4.1992. On his death Shikhar Chand Jain had become `Karta'. For the reason that Shikhar Chand Jain was working as an Engineer in the Irrigation Department and, therefore, he had nominated his two brothers and other members of the undivided family to look after the business. It was stated by the plaintiff that atter the death of Chhitarmal even the account in the Bank of Baroda, Mahuwa was operated in the name of Shikhar Chand Jain. Shikhar Chand Jain had retired from service on 30.9.1996 and had taken over the business including the present petrol pump. It was the case of Shikhar Chand Jain that Bhairon Mal was only a partner by name and for the convenience sake name of Khoob Chand was also added. For the reasons that the supply was not being made regularly by the Corporation, the petrol pump was closed on 31.5.1997 on the application of Bhairon Mal. It was the case of the plaintiff that the supply of Petrol had been stopped without any reason and national loss was being caused. Permanent injunction was sought against the Corporation that the agency to run the petrol pump be not given to any other person by the Corporation and agency in the name of the firm be not cancelled. 4. Permanent injunction was sought against the Corporation that the agency to run the petrol pump be not given to any other person by the Corporation and agency in the name of the firm be not cancelled. 4. In the reply filed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., it was admitted that the license was given in the name of the firm Chaju Ram Chhitarmal, but it was denied that the business belonged to Undivided Hindu Family. For the reason that one of the partner of the firm Chhitarmal had died and despite the fact that Bhairon Mal was appointed as interim dealer, but he had not complied with the day today instructions issued by the Corporation right upto 5.9.1993, even the firm was not re-constituted and, therefore, the supply of products had to be stopped. It was the further case of the Corporation that as the business related to the firm with two partners and one partner having died and thus the agreement dated 23.6.1970 between the Corporation and the firm had come to an end automatically and, therefore, on 6.7.1993 Bhairumal was appointed as an interim dealer on the condition that this arrangement can be ended any time. It was the case of the Corporation that Shikhar Chand Jain had no concern what so ever with the firm. 5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Bhairu Mal and Khoob Chand had taken up the plea that Shikhar Chand Jain who had filed a suit on behalf of the plaintiff firm was not an authorised dealer of the petrol outlet, nor he was made a dealer at any time by the Corporation. It was also the case that earlier partner Chhitarmal and Bhairumal had appointed respondent No. 3 Bhairu Mal to do the working on the petrol pump and at the death of Chhitarmal, Khoob Chand was also doing the same business. It was further mentioned that Bhairu Lal was the member of the partnership firm from the very beginning and as per the last wish of Chhitarmal, Khoob Chand was doing the work since long and both were the dealers. It was also the contention of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that because of the instructions of Shikhar Chand Jain, the renewal was not done by the Corporation. It was also the contention of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that because of the instructions of Shikhar Chand Jain, the renewal was not done by the Corporation. The contention was also made that after the death of Chhitarmal Jain, supply was continuing for four years, but later on it was stopped which action of the Corporation was illegal. Action of the Corporation was also alleged to be arbitrary. 6. The trial court had found that for the reasons that proper documentation was not done after the death of Chhitarmal, therefore, there was no obligation on the respondent Corporation to continue the supply. Certain letters of the Corporation were referred to in this regard. The trial court came to the finding that there was no prima facie case made out in favour of the plaintiff until and unless there is a valid agreement entered into between the parties after the death of Chhitarmal. It was also observed by the trial court that the Corporation was also of the opinion that the working of the petrol pump should continue, but because of the dispute between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the working of the petrol pump had been stopped and even the Corporation was being put to loss. The application of interim injunction was rejected with the observation that if a firm is reconstituted and the agreement is produced before the Corporation, the Corporation shall be at liberty to take action on this count. 7. In continuation to the order dated 2.6.1999, the court had ultimately given directions on 5.6.1999 which are contained in the said order dated 5.6.1999 as follows : (1) that the petrol pump shall be run for the time being by Bhairu Mal and Khoob Chand who is brother of plaintiff Shikhar Chand Jain; (2) they would be paid Rs. 5,000/- p.m.; (3) Shikhar Chand Jain would scrutinise the so accounts after every three months and he would given the suggestions which would be taken into account by the court; (4) audit would also be done between the parties. The Corporation is aggrieved against such direction and had filed the misc. appeal No. 1223/1999. Chajuram Chhitarmal has also filed appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. The Corporation is aggrieved against such direction and had filed the misc. appeal No. 1223/1999. Chajuram Chhitarmal has also filed appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 893/1999 being aggrieved of the order dated 2.6.1999 when the interim injunction had been rejected with the prayer that the Corporation be directed to continue with the supply of petroleum product in favour of the plaintiff as usual and on the same terms as was being done upto 31.5.1997.Civil Revision petition No. 959/1999 has been filed by the firm through Shri Shikhar Chand Jain against the order dated 5.6.1999 which order has been reproduced above.The prayer in the revision petition is to quash the order dated 5.6 1999 i.e the interim order passed by the court below for making arrangement for running the petrol pump i.e. the revisional petition in revision petition is supporting the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1223/1999 for setting aside the order dated 5.6.1999. 8. Following are the admitted facts : (1) that the firm in the name of M/s. Chhaju Ram Chhitar Mal was granted license to run the petrol pump: (2) Chhitarmal had died on 19.4.1992; (3) Bhairulal was one of the partner; (4) after the death of Chhitar Mal, he remained the sole partner; (5) the petrol pump continued working up to 31.5.1997 when it was closed because of certain letter written by Bhairumal, (6) the license of petrol pump stood renewed up to 31.3.2007. 9. Certain technical objections had also been taken in between the parties in regard to filing of one appeal against two orders by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation to which Mr. Kasliwal states that the order dated 5.6.1999 is but a continuation of the order dated 2.6.1999 to which I fully agree. 10. As per pedigree Chhajuram had two sons Chhitarmal and Bhairon Lal. Chhitarmal had one son Khoob Chand. Mr. Kasliwal, counsel for the Corporation submits that the firm stands dissolved and the sons of various partners of the firm had not reconstituted the firm as yet and, therefore, despite the time given, and on the failure of the parties to reconstitute the firm, the Corporation was justified in stopping the arrangement of supply and rely on Section 42 of the Partnership Act to the effect that on the death of the one partner, the firm stands automatically dissolved. 11. The counsel for the Corporation, Mr. 11. The counsel for the Corporation, Mr. Kasliwal, has placed on record the memorandum of agreement of 23.6.1970 which was signed by Chhitarmal son of Chhajuram and Bhairon Lal S/o Chhajuram i.e. the terms of the license under the name and style of partnership of M/s Chhajuram Chhitarmal. One of the condition in the license-deed is that no change will be made in the constitution of the licensee firm, nor the partnership shall be dissolved, nor any new member shall be admitted as partners without the previous consent in writing of the company itself. It was further mentioned that on the death or retirement of a working partner in the capacity of a partner as licensee of the firm, the agreement shall continue as between the company and surviving or continuing partner of the licensee. The legal representatives of the deceased partner or retiring partner shall be liable for all liabilities of the licensee incurred up to the date of death or retirement. The death of the partner is to be notified by the licensee of the company. The relevant portion of clause 13(L) is reproduced as under : "On the death or retirement or permanent incapacity of any partner of the Licensee (if a firm) the company may at its option at once determine this Agreement, and it the option shall not be exercised the Agreement shall continue as between the Company and the surviving or continuing partners of the Licensees. The legal representatives of the deceased partner or the retiring partner shall be liable for all obligations of the Licensees incurred up to the date of death or retirement, and shall not be entitled to claim from the company any portion of the security deposit. The death of a partner shall be notified by the Licensees to the Company in writing within 24 hours of such death." 12. The letter dated 6.7.1993 has also been placed on record written to Bhairon Lal Jain by the Corporation that the agreement dated 23.6.1970 had come to an end and, therefore, on the request of Bhairon Mal Jain he was appointed as an interim dealer up to 5th September 1993. Bhaironmal had informed the Corporation to the effect that the supply should only be made to petrol pump under his directions. Bhaironmal had informed the Corporation to the effect that the supply should only be made to petrol pump under his directions. Vide letter dated 24.5.1992 Bhaironmal also informed that even though one Khoob Chand s/o Chhitarmal Jain was also running the petrol pump on the instructions of Chhitarmal, but after the death of Chhitarmal other brothers are in dispute and, therefore, supply should only be made under the signatures of Bhaironmal Jain only and none else. Bhaironmal Jain was informed by the Corporation that the petrol pump was not being managed properly as per the instructions/agreement etc. between the firm and the Corporation. The Corporation had given time to them to set the matters right and also to reconstitute the firm. In August 1997 Bhaironmal Jain was informed that the disputes between the partners be settled immediately otherwise they will have no option but to stop the supply. The Corporation was informed vide letter dated 6.12.1997 attaching therein the copy of the re-constitution of the firm which was replied by the Corporation to the effect that the copy was not in accordance with law. 13. From the above-said narration of facts, it is very clear that the Corporation had no objection if the firm was reconstituted amicably between the surviving partner of the firm and the legal heirs of Chhitarmal. Otherwise, there was no option left with the Corporation, but to close the out-let itself. It goes without saying that the legal heirs of the partners have their vested right about the claim of the deceased partner. The locus standi of Shikhar Chand Jain to the file the suit on behalf of the firm, is still to be established in the court. In my opinion, and in the circumstances, the interim application moved on behalf of the firm by Shikhar Chand Jain was rightly dismissed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court ought to have only decided the application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC of the plaintiff firm. There was no such application on behalf of the parties to order such an interim directions as has been mentioned in the order dated 5.6.1999. 14. There was no such application on behalf of the parties to order such an interim directions as has been mentioned in the order dated 5.6.1999. 14. I agree with the submission made by the counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation that the trial court ought to have only confined itself to the prayer made for interim injunction and there being no such prayer to order any interim arrangement for running the petrol pump the trial court did exceed its jurisdiction and thus the direction given by the trial court vide order dated 5.6.1999 cannot be sustained in law. The firm was not able to reconstitute itself and, therefore, Bharat Petroleum Corporation was justified in saying that until and unless the firm is reconstituted as to enable the Bharat Petroleum Corporation to deal with authorised persons, no supply can be made to the out-let. The license is in the name of the firm, but where is the firm? It was a question which was definitely faced by the parties. The 1 parties had not decided amongst themselves to reconstitute the firm with he result it was bound to loose the business. In the circumstances, the application of interim injunction was rightly rejected by the trial court and I uphold the same, but with observation that if and when the firm is reconstituted within a reasonable period, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation shall scrutinise the same and start supplying the petroleum product to the out-let as before. 15. If the legal heirs of the firm and the surviving partners had not been able to sort out the matter and if they are bound to harm themselves, despite he best efforts of the Corporation, none can be blamed but the parties themselves. There is no mandatory provision in the agreement that on the death of the partner the outlet is bound to be closed rather there is enabling provision for running the outlet itself as has been provided in sub- clause (b) of clause 13 reproduced above. It has come on record by the documents submitted by the Corporation itself in this court that the firm was ultimately able to decide and send the name of the partners of the firm which according to the Corporation was not in legal form. It has come on record by the documents submitted by the Corporation itself in this court that the firm was ultimately able to decide and send the name of the partners of the firm which according to the Corporation was not in legal form. If and when any partner-deed look into the matter and enter into the agreement with the partners of the firm so reconstituted out of the old firm. It is not disputed that the outlet of the petrol pump stands closed since 1997. Bhairumal, one of the partner is still surviving. 16. In view of the above-said discussion and observations, the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1223/1999 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s. Chhaju Ram Chhitarmal & Ors., is allowed and the order dated 5.6.1999 passed by the trial court is quashed. 17. For the reasons that Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1223/1999 is being allowed, the revision petition so far the prayer for quashing the order dated 5.6.1999 is concerned, stands automatically allowed. Any other reliefs mentioned in the civil revision petition as prayed are rejected except to the extent as mentioned above. The revision petition is partly allowed. 18. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 893/1999 M/s. Chhaju Ram Chhitar Mal v. Bharat Petroleum Ltd. is dismissed and the order of the trial court in rejecting the interim application is allowed. 19. As the case relates to running of the petrol pump for supplying the petroleum products to the public, it shall be appropriate that the trial court should try to decide the matter preferably within one year as requested by all the parties. Anything said in the above-said Civil Misc. Appeal on interim applications shall not however, be taken to be said on merits of the suit which shall be decided on its own merits.Misc Appeal No. 1223/1999 allowed; Misc Appeal No 893/1999 dismissed; Revision Petition partly allowed. *******