The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the grounds for dissolution of a partnership firm under Section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932, and the court's interpretation of the just and equitable grounds for dissolution.

JUDGMENT

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 v. LR's of Chiranjilal & Ors." vide which while allowing first appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Judgment & Decree dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Churu in Civil Suit No. 115/1995 titled as "Chandanmal v. LR's of Chiranjilal & Ors." 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. 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 (resp