Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. XL, r. 1 & O. XXXIX, rr. 1, 4-Suit for accounts of partnership-Plaintiff applying for appointment of Receiver and temporary injunction against disposal of property-Failure to make out prima facie case that property was partnership property-Defendants keeping regular account showing profit and loss-Balance of inconvenience, held was in favour of defendants-Reliefs prayed for refused.   T. Krishnaswamy Cheny v. C. Thanga Velu Chetty A I R 1955 Mad. 430; Sitaram Kundanlal and others v. Pannalal Kundanlal and others A I R 1957 Nag. 1; G. Ramchandrayya v. Nethi 1swarayya A I R 1952 Hyd. 139; Basant Ram v. Dasonathi Mal and others A I R 1929 Lah. 497 ; Mahmud Niaz Faruki v. Anaco (Pak.) Ltd. P L D 1962 Kar. 71; E. B. M. Company, Ltd. v. Dominion Bank A I R 1937 P C 279; A. G. Khan v. Shujauddin Qureshi and others P L D 1961 S C 6; L. D. Meston School Society v. Kishi Nath Misra A I R 1951 All. 558 and Fakira Mahadaji MRrathe v. Afst. RQmsukhbai A I R 1946 Nag. 428 ref.   Date of hearing: 1st March 1965.   ORDER   This is a suit for accounts of partnership between the brothers and their paternal uncles. Plaintiff and defen dant No. 3 are real brothers and are nephews of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff has alleged himself to be "practi cally blind since his birth." His case is that his grand father Muhammad Ismail was doing business at Calcutta a few years before Independence in 1947. A deed of partnership was executed on 12-11-1947 between him and his three sons, namely, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Muhammad Ishaque father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and they were carrying on business under the name and style of two firms viz: "Muhammad Ismail & Co." and "Muhammad Ismail Muhammad Sadik". This partner ship, according to him, started another business of export and import at Karachi in December, 1947 under the same firm's name viz. Muhammad Ismail & Co. His father Muhammad Ishaque died on 31-8-1949 at Karachi but the partnership continued by the surviving partners along with the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. The latter attained majority in March,…