Judgment :- (Civil revision petition No.1829 of 2005 has been filed against the order dated 02.12.2005 made in I.A.No.2218 of 2005 in O.S.No.1935 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.) Common Order: I have heard both the counsel. There are three partnership firms involved in these cases. One is M/s. Genn Controls, the partners of which are second plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. Same business is run in the name of Genn Industrie (the fourth defendant) by defendants 1 to 3 as partners. Fourth defendant in turn created fifth defendant industry, which is run by sixth defendant, wife of second defendant. We are not very much concerned about the fifth defendant firm. The lis is about the running of fourth defendant firm. 2. The second plaintiff Veluswamy claimed that he only created the fourth defendant partnership firm; for certain reasons, he could not get included in the firm as a partner and he only made defendants 1 to 3 as partners of the Genn Industries. Though the firm was started in the name of the fourth defendant, it is the plaintiffs according to whom are responsible for the entire business of the fourth defendant. 3. As aforesaid, the business is common for first plaintiff and fourth defendant firm. Defendants 1 to 3, who are partners in fourth defendant cannot run the same business detrimental to first plaintiff firm in which also they are equal partners. 4. Such a doubt had arisen in the mind of first plaintiff. Therefore, he has preferred the suit for accounts. 5. Learned counsel for second plaintiff submitted that under Section 16(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, he is entitled for the said relief. By relying upon the same, interim application was filed, wherein Defendants 4 and 5 were injuncted not to run the business. It is against such order, the defendants have filed these revision petitions. There is an order of suspension of impugned order. 6. By relying upon the same, interim application was filed, wherein Defendants 4 and 5 were injuncted not to run the business. It is against such order, the defendants have filed these revision petitions. There is an order of suspension of impugned order. 6. While hearing arguments, it was suggested by the Court that (i) the suit can be tried earlier and suitable directions may be issued to the trial Court; (ii) the defendants may be allowed to run the business; (iii) while running the business, the said defendants have to submit daily account sheets at the end of every week into trial Court and (iv) pending suit, no alienation shall be made by defendants in the said corpus of the said forum and learned counsels for both agree for the same. These directions are made without prejudice to the case of the either party and without going into the merits of the case. In superstition of every order made earlier, the above observations will hold good. The trial Court is required to dispose of the case as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, all the civil revision petitions are closed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is also closed.