ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.--This revision is filed against the order dated 11.7.2002 on I.A. No. VII in O.S. No. 27 of 1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yadgir. 2. There was dissolution of the partnership. A suit came to be filed by one deceased partner Ambalal Jain seeking rendition of accounts from the other partners. Even before institution of the suit, the parties by mutual consent had dissolved the partnership. There was difference with regard to accounting. Hence, the suit was filed. At the time of dissolution, the properties of the partnership were in the custody of different partners. Some machineries of the partnership firm are in the custody of the Defendant No. 2. The Plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. VII alleging that the machineries were in the custody of the second Defendant, if alienated, it would cause irreparable damage to the interests of partners. A doubt was also expressed whether all the machineries in the custody of the second Defendant are intact therefore sought a direction for an inventory to find out the details of all the machineries, which are in the custody of the second Defendant. In alternative, sought a direction to compel the second Defendant to offer a security for the properties in his possession. The trial Court found that appointing an inventory after lapse of 6 to 7 years would serve no purpose. Therefore, directed the second Defendant to offer a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,19,500/-, which was supposed to be the value of the machineries in his custody. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the other partners have been in possession of the properties of the firm and they should also in a similar manner execute bank guarantee as a security. He also submits that the machineries are intact and there was no intention of alienating the same. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find the direction to the Petitioner to offer bank guarantee appears to be harsh term. Instead, it would suffice, if the Petitioner is directed to offer any immovable property as a security to the satisfaction of the trial Court to an extent of Rs.2,20,000/-. It is directed that the suit to be disposed of within three months from the date of this order. Instead, it would suffice, if the Petitioner is directed to offer any immovable property as a security to the satisfaction of the trial Court to an extent of Rs.2,20,000/-. It is directed that the suit to be disposed of within three months from the date of this order. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of.