JUDGMENT : RAMESHWAR VYAS, J. 1. The instant civil second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendants-appellants against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.2021 (Amended Decree vide Order dated 08.12.2021) passed by the Additional District Judge, Sardarshahar, District Churu in Civil Regular Appeal No. 07/2021 (13/2021) titled as Chandanmal vs. LRs. of Chiranjilal and Others, vide which while allowing first appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Churu in Civil Suit No. 115/1995 titled as Chandanmal vs. LRs. of Chiranjilal and Others, dismissing the suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, was set aside and the suit was decreed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Chandanmal (respondent No. 1 herein), a partner in the registered partnership firm M/s Navdeep Gum Mills, filed a civil suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against legal heirs of co-partner Chiranjilal and other partners with the averments that M/s Navdeep Gum Mills was registered firm, for which partnership deed was executed on 26.08.1987. The firm was dealing in production and sale of Gwar Gum. The dispute arose between the partners, after that, a compromise between them was arrived at on 21.01.1992 and business of the firm remained smooth till 31.07.1992. Afterwards, dispute again arose between the partners. As per allegations made by the plaintiff, defendants started to act for personal benefits and against the interest of the firm. The registered firm borrowed a sum of Rs. 50 lacs on interest @ 18% per annum. From 01.08.1992, defendants controlled entire business under them and plaintiff was deprived of his rights and duties towards the firm. The plaintiff narrated alleged acts of the defendants detrimental to the interest of the firm. The income shown by defendants was not sufficient even to repay interest amount. The plaintiff was having 32% share in the profit and loss of the firm. The plaintiff, therefore, sought relief of dissolution of the partnership, appointment of receiver and rendition of accounts. He also sought injunction to the effect that defendants be restrained from doing business against interest of the firm. In the written statement, defendants (appellants herein) denied allegations levelled against them. The plaintiff, therefore, sought relief of dissolution of the partnership, appointment of receiver and rendition of accounts. He also sought injunction to the effect that defendants be restrained from doing business against interest of the firm. In the written statement, defendants (appellants herein) denied allegations levelled against them. As per averments made in the written statement, plaintiff refused to sign on the application seeking renewal of license issued in favour of the firm from Krishi Upaj Mandi, on account of which, license of the firm was cancelled. The plaintiff also wrote to the bank seeking restriction on financial transaction of the firm. The money was borrowed by the firm for the benefit of the business. The firm was having right to do job work. It was not wrong to do job work for the defendants. Job work was being done for the benefit of the firm. On account of job work, firm could reduce its liability. The defendants with their efforts succeeded in reducing electricity bills to the tune of Rs. 58 lacs through Settlement Committee. The defendants were acting for the benefit of the firm. The job work was in the interest of the firm. On these premises, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. 3. After framing issues and adducing the evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. Aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the trial court, plaintiff-respondent No. 1-Chandanmal preferred first appeal, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Sardarshahar, District Churu vide Judgment dated 26.11.2021 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 07/2021 (13/2021), which has been impugned in this second appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submitted that plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) himself was guilty for his conduct. The plaintiff was not expelled by the defendants; he himself choose to be an outgoing partner. As per partnership deed, in case of death or retirement of a partner, firm will not stand dissolved. He further submitted that plaintiff was having no right to seek dissolution of the partnership except to seek rendition of accounts and take value of his share in the partnership either by mutual agreement or at law. The defendants were not guilty of any misconduct. He further submitted that plaintiff was having no right to seek dissolution of the partnership except to seek rendition of accounts and take value of his share in the partnership either by mutual agreement or at law. The defendants were not guilty of any misconduct. The firm is working as on date and substantial liability has been discharged, though, purchase and sale work could not be performed in view of cancellation of license of the firm at the instance of the plaintiff himself. He further submitted that as on date, firm is carrying financial liability against it and as per partnership deed, the partnership cannot be dissolved at the will of the plaintiff. No partner can leave partnership till financial outstanding was payable. He further submitted that partnership was not at will and it could not be dissolved at the instance of the plaintiff. There was no just and equitable grounds before the first appellate court for allowing dissolution of the firm. He further submitted that first appellate court erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit for dissolution of partnership. The first appellate court committed error while passing judgment impugned. While suggesting substantial questions of law, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants prayed to allow this second appeal and set aside judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dissolving partnership from 26.11.2021 and directing for rendition of accounts. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.O.H. Uduman and Others vs. M.O.H. Aslum, AIR 1991 SC 1020 , wherein it was held that: “.......the essence of a partnership at will is that it is open to either partner to dissolve the partnership by giving notice. Relinquishment of one partner’s interest in favour of other, which is provided in the contract, is a very different matter.” 7. Relinquishment of one partner’s interest in favour of other, which is provided in the contract, is a very different matter.” 7. He has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pamuru Vishnu Vinodh Reddy vs. Chillakuru Chandrashekhara Reddy and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1614 , wherein it was held as under: “.......relevant date for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the share of the plaintiff was the date on which he ceased to be a partner as it is a case where there was an express agreement between the parties to sell the share of the plaintiff in favour of Sri M. Subbareddy and with effect from that date, he became a secured creditor.....” 8. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of N. Satyanarayana Murthy and Others vs. M. Venkata Bala Krishnamurthy, AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 167, wherein it was held in Para-20 of the judgment as under: “20. In the light of the above discussion it must be held that the width of the words “just and equitable” in Section 44(g) of the Act is of wide import, with unfettered discretion on the exercise of the power by the Court and it is incapable of precise definition. But itself is a limitation upon the court to exercise the discretion wisely taking into account not only the true intent and meaning of the articles of the partnership but also general interest of all the partners; the essential purpose for which the partnership has been formed and the detriment the partnership suffers from, while at the same time assuasing the rights of the aggrieved partners. The court would induct into all relevant consideration eschewing irrelevant or its inclination to dissolve the firm keeping in mind that it operates harshly annihilating the on going business on profitable lines, it must find whether it is no longer reasonably possible to carry the business according to true interest and meaning of the articles of the partnership. Each case furnishes its own peculiar facts calling for applicable or non-applicable of Clause (g). The court also must endeavor to see whether any alternative just relief without dissolving the firm could be granted to the plaintiff. Each case furnishes its own peculiar facts calling for applicable or non-applicable of Clause (g). The court also must endeavor to see whether any alternative just relief without dissolving the firm could be granted to the plaintiff. On considering all the pros and cons if the court is of opinion that equity and justice demands dissolution, it is perfectly open to the Court to exercise the power under Section 44(g) of the Act. The cases dealt by the Privy Council, House of Lords and the Supreme Court are cases relate to the Company, but the meaning and purport is the same shedding illumination in its application to varied situations, though the partnership is founded on contract and not on status.” 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 submitted that defendants turned hostile to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not doing business in the partnership firm since 1992. The defendants (appellants herein) were acting against the purpose of the partnership firm. The license to do business was already cancelled since long back. No account was being maintained by any partner of the firm since long back. In view of the above situation, there was no reason to deny dissolution of the firm. It was just and equitable that firm should be dissolved. The first appellate court while allowing first appeal, has rightly dissolved the firm and issued certain directions. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal for consideration of this Court. He, therefore, prayed that instant second appeal be dismissed at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P.N. Shanmugam and Another vs. Rama P.D. Vadivelu and Another, (2006) 4 ALT 485 , wherein it was held in Para 24 and 25 of the judgment as under: “24. Section 44 (d) of the Act is an enabling section, which authorizes the court to dissolve the firm at the suit of the partner, if the court comes to the conclusion that meeting of the partnership was never held after execution of the partnership deed in spite of repeated requests by the plaintiff, managing partner did not show him the accounts; confidence between the partners i.e. plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant on the other found lost. 25. 25. It is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in Para-6 of the plaint that since three years defendants 1 and 2 who are managing partners have turned hostile to the plaintiff and successfully evading in rendering accounts to the plaintiff and they are misappropriating the entire income derived from the partnership business. In Para-7 it was asserted that the business is now fetching Rs. 30,000/- per month and major portion of the income being adjusted towards debts till 1991 and since from 1993 onwards defendants have colluded together and misappropriated the entire income. The said fact has been totally denied by the defendants. Defendants also denied about execution of partnership deed dated 1-4-1992. In the reply notice dated 21-12-1994 it was stated that under the new partnership deed-Ex. A-3 plaintiff and others are only name lenders and plaintiff has no right in the partnership business. In view of the said hostile attitude taken by the defendants the court in exercise of residuary power under section 44 (g) of the Act can dissolve the firm subject to compliance under Order XX Rule 15 CPC from the future date.” 10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and principles of law enunciated by the Courts in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law involved in this case for consideration by this Court. It is not in dispute that partnership was not at will, therefore, plaintiff was having no right to get dissolved the firm at his will. However, the above principle of law is not applicable in the present case. The present case does not come under the purview of Section 43 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (afterwards referred to as “the Act of 1932”) which relates to dissolution of partnership by notice. The plaintiff has prayed to dissolve the firm under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 1932. Section 44 ibid reads as under: “44. Dissolution by the Court: At the suit of a partner, the Court may dissolve a firm on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that a partner has become of unsound mind, in which case the suit may be brought as well by the next friend of the partner who has become of unsound mind as by any other partner. Dissolution by the Court: At the suit of a partner, the Court may dissolve a firm on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that a partner has become of unsound mind, in which case the suit may be brought as well by the next friend of the partner who has become of unsound mind as by any other partner. (b) that a partner, other than the partner suing, has become in any way permanently incapable of performing his duties as partner. (c) that a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of conduct which is likely to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business regard being had to the nature of the business. (d) that a partner, other than the partner suing, wilfully or persistently commits breach of agreements relating to the management of the affairs of the firm of the conduct of its business; or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the business that it is not reasonably practicable for the other partners to carry on the business in partnership with him. (e) that a partner, other than the partner suing, has in any way transferred the whole of his interest in the firm to a third party, or has allowed his share to be charged under the provisions of rule 49 of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or has allowed it to be sold in the recovery of arrears of land revenue or of any dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue due by the partner. (f) that the business of the firm cannot be carried on save at a loss. (g) on any other ground which renders it just and equitable that the firm should be dissolved.” 11. The grounds applicable in the present case are Grounds (D), (F) and (G). In the present case, it is not in dispute that since 1992, firm was running in loss. It is admitted fact that relations between the plaintiff and other partners were hostile towards each other. It is also not in dispute that no accounts were being maintained by the defendants. It is also not in dispute that license for production and sale of the Gwar Gum was cancelled long back and defendants were doing job work. The plaintiff-Chandanmal was having largest share of 32% in the partnership firm. It is also not in dispute that no accounts were being maintained by the defendants. It is also not in dispute that license for production and sale of the Gwar Gum was cancelled long back and defendants were doing job work. The plaintiff-Chandanmal was having largest share of 32% in the partnership firm. The factual position emerges from the record refers it just and equitable that firm should be dissolved. No purpose would be served in denying dissolution of the partnership firm. Without commenting on the conduct of any partner, this Court is in agreement with the judgment and decree impugned that partnership be dissolved from 26.11.2021. The first appellate court committed no error in dissolving the firm. The first appellate court was also right in issuing certain directions to the defendants for modalities in taking necessary action in consequence of dissolution of the partnership. 12. Resultantly, this second appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.