JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Mr Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and Mr. J.J. Munir, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent and have also gone through the material placed on record. 2. The instant appeal is preferred by the defendant/appellant against the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4 Agra in Original Suit No. 1023 of 2012 whereby the application for temporary injunction (application 8-C) filed by the plaintiff/respondent was allowed by ordering the parties to maintain status quo. 3. Perusal of the record would disclose that a dispute arose between the partnership firm runs in the name and style of M/s Surya Industries in which the appellant/defendant herein has its share to the extent of 51 % and the plaintiff respondent has its share of 49 % for carrying out the business of manufacturing and trading of all Oil Engine parts etc. However, plaintiff/respondent is said to be Managing Partner of the said firm. It is alleged that a suit being O.S. No. 1023 of 2012 was filed by plaintiff respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from interferring the alleged possession of the plaintiff over the property in suit. In the said suit, an application (8C) for temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiff/respondent which is said to be contested by the defendant/appellant by filing objection to the same and further the defendant/appellant has also filed an application (36-C) for temporary injunction during the pendency of the said suit for restraining the plaintiff/respondent from interferring with the right of the defendant/appellant from carrying out its business. This application was also contested by the plaintiff/respondent by filing objection before the trial Court and the Court below after considering the pleadings of the parties allowed the application for temporary injunction (application 8-C) filed by the plaintiff/respondent by ordering the parties to maintain status quo vide its order dated 15.7.2015. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court. 4. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant/appellant that the Court below has erred in passing the impugned order for temporary injunction in absence of any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/respondent inasmuch as the suit pending between the parties in nutshell is by a partnership firm against one of its partner at the instance of another partner and hence in that view of the matter the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Order 30 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. After having heard, the learned counsel for the parties at some length, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that the matter may be remitted to the Court below with a direction to dispose of the suit pending between the parties on its merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. It is further contended that a prima facie case is made out in favour of the defendant/appellant for grant of temporary injunction with an order of status quo. 6. Although, it was argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent that both the parties are being benefited from the order of status quo passed by the Court below. 7. On the question of maintainability of the suit leaned counsel for the plaintiff/defendant also tried to persuade the Court by referring a judgement of Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Agarwal Stone Mill v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, AIR 1993 Alld 286 and contended that no suit is maintainable by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be a partner in the firm. 8. Admittedly, in the case in hand one of the partner has filed a suit against the other partner and also sought injunction and the Court below after hearing both the parties allowed the application for temporary injunction (application 8-C) filed by the plaintiff/respondent by ordering the parties to maintain status quo, therefore, in the circumstances as contended by learned counsel for the defendant/appellant the interest of defendant/appellant has also to be protected as there is likelihood that nature of the partnership business may be got changed by the plaintiff/respondent other than the nature of leased property. It is further submitted that the entire amount of premium has already been paid to the plaintiff/respondent. 9. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent agreed for disposal of the suit without being influenced by the order passed by the Court below. In the circumstances, without prejudice to the merits of the case and also as agreed by the parties, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit pending before it on merits without being influenced by the order passed earlier and the Court below shall also look into the question of maintainability and shall decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to either of the parties in accordance with law. The Court below is expected expeditious disposal of the matter pending before it and for which the Court below is directed to start hearing of the case from the next date of appearance fixed by the Court below in the matter. However, it is directed that till disposal of the suit the parties shall maintain order of status quo. No order as to costs in this appeal. 10. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. ———————