IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 303 of 2006. Date of Decision: 25th February, 2008. M/s Jagdish Raj & Bros. & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate Versus Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. I.P.Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar whereby two applications (i) one under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 moved on behalf of respondent-defendants No. 2 to 4 and (ii) the one under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. moved by the petitioner-plaintiffs, have been decided. While the first application has been allowed and the dispute amongst the partners has been referred for adjudication to the Arbitrator, the ad-interim injunction application moved by the petitioners, has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. Civil Revision No. 303 of 2006. ::2:: M/s Jagdish Raj and Brothers is a partnership firm. It raised a dispute against Union of India which was referred to the Arbitrator, who passed an Award in favour of the Firm for payment of a sum of Rs.67,21,762/-. After passing of the aforesaid award, the partners, who are brothers are, at logger heads with each other. The awarded amount has since been withdrawn by the Firm through Jagdish Raj – respondent No.2, who has put the same in the shape of FDRs with respondent No.1-Bank. There has arisen a dispute with regard to disbursement of the said amount amongst the partners. During the course of hearing, a consensus has emerged and learned counsel for the parties have agreed that after the decision of the appeal filed by the Union of India against making of the Award as rule of the Court and subject to the award attaining finality, the afore-stated awarded amount lying in the FDRs along with interest accrued thereupon from the date the said amount was paid by Union of India to the Firm till the date of its actual disbursement, shall be disbursed amongst the partners as per their respective shares in the original partnership deed dated 21.3.1981, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to plead the alleged subsequent partnership deed dated 1.4.1988. Further, the proportionate share of Shri Ram Lal and Smt. Neelam Rani – two partners who are alleged to have been dropped at the time of reconstitution of the partnership on 1.4.1988, shall be released to them only on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of Civil Revision No. 303 of 2006. ::3:: the Executing Court. In addition the partnership firm shall be entitled to deduct the actual expenses incurred by it in litigation thereof proportionately from all the partners, subject to approval of the deducted litigation expenses by the Executing Court. The present revision is disposed of accordingly and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Disposed of. February 25, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE