Civil Revision No. 2001 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 26 , 2010 1. Civil Revision No. 2001 of 2010 Oudh Bihari ....... Petitioner Versus M/s Tara Chand Oudh Bihari and others ....... Respondents. 1. Civil Revision No. 2002 of 2010 Oudh Bihari ....... Petitioner Versus M/s Tara Chand Oudh Bihari and others ....... Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The two petitions bearing CR No. 2001 of 2010 and CR Civil Revision No. 2001 of 2010 2 No.2002 of 2010 have been filed against the order of the learned Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents to the effect that the appellant be restrained from interfering in the day to day running of the firm of which the parties are partners and also from blocking the accounts of the firm. The learned trial court rejected the application for injunction primarily on the ground that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement which has been entered into between the parties. Apart from that the learned trial Court also found that the petitioner could not be restrained from operating his bank accounts as a partner notwithstanding the compromise between the parties dated 19.03.2007/20.03.2007. Learned trial Court was also influenced by the fact that the respondents are sons of the petitioner and as such have a pious duty to take care of their father. The learned Appellate Court, however, partly allowed the appeal in so much as it restrained the petitioner from operating the bank accounts of the firm. He, however, protected the interest of the petitioner by directing the respondents to pay maintenance (as agreed by compromise dated 19.3.2007/20.03.2007) as well as submit the monthly balance sheets on or before 11th of every calendar month. He further directed that all the transactions in the bank accounts except for cash deposit be made only through negotiable instruments. He further directed the respondents to take out a public notice in a leading newspaper informing the public that the petitioner shall not be liable for any losses of the firm. In my opinion there is no such material irregularity in the order of the learned Appellate Court which can justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Appellate court has merely Civil Revision No. 2001 of 2010 3 ensured that the admitted compromise between the parties is adhered to. Consequently both the petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 26, 2010 sunita