Mahendra Bhushan, J.—This is Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Order dated, September 20, 1980 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City allowing the application of plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 under O. 40 R. 1,C.P.C.

2. The facts relating to this miscellaneous appeal are these. Hotel Kanti Chandra Palace is a registered partnership concern. A partnership deed was executed on September 15, 1976. The parties are all partners of the said Firm, Appellant No.l, Abani Kumar Mukherjee, is the owner of land and building. He agreed to lease out the land and building measuring 2500 Sq. yards situated at Hathi Baba-ka-bagh, Station Road, Jaipur including 3000 Sq. ft. underground for the business of the Firm and he was to receive a sum of Rs. 2000/- p.m. as the lease money and was also to be a partner to share the profits and losses. Respondents No. 1 & 2 were required to invest a sum of about Rs. 2 lacs in the additions, alterations and furnishing of the hotel Kanti Chandra Palace. It is said that a sum of Rs, 2,23,102.81 was invested by respondents No. 1 and 2 towards the partnership business and the Hotel was inaugurated by one Girdhari Lal Bhargava on June 7, 1977 and started functioning thereafter. All the partners were to manage the affairs of the partnership business, but the appellants started placing obstructions in the functioning of respondents No. 1 and 2 in the management of the partnership concern and excluded them from managing the affairs of the business. The appellants, it is said, were not maintaining proper accounts and were squandering the funds of the partnership concern. Not only this, in part of the leased out premises they also started another Hotel Ishan Chandra Palace. The staff appointed earlier by respondents was removed and new persons were appointed to manage the business. The respondents therefore, filed a suit for injunction and for appointment of a received against the appellants.

3. On the first date of hearing an application under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, lv40 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was filed on behalf of the appellants for staying of the suit on the grounds that as per the partnership deed dated September 15,1976, there was an arbitration clause 15, under which all the disputes and differences in connection with the partnership business were to be referred to the arbitrator to be appointed by the parties thereto and the decision of the arbitratory so appointed was final and binding on all the parties. The learned trial Court stayed the suit as well as miscellaneous application under 0.39 R.l. C.P.C. read with O.40 R.l. C.P.C. The respondents filed appeal against that order in this Court that was treated as revision and this Court by its Order dated February 27, 1980 allowed the revision-petition and held that notwithstanding that the original suit has been stayed under Sec. 34 of the Act, the Court has jurisdiction to deal with supplemental proceedings to issue injunction and/or to appoint receiver. Thereafter the learned Additional District Judge in whose Court the case had been transferred by the learned District Judge allowed the application of respondents No. 1 and 2 under the impugned order and appointed Ambikesh Sharma Advocate as a receiver for the proper management of the Hotel Kanti Chandra Palace. The Court also issued a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from running any other business in the leased out premises. It is that Order of the trial Court which has been challenged in this appeal.

4. The question is as to whether as held by the trial Court it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver of a running partnership business M/s Kanti Chand Palace Hotel? Generally a receiver is appointed by the Court to receive and preserve the property of fund in litigation pendente lite when it does not seem reasonable to the Court that either party should hold it. The only object and effect of appointment of a receiver is to maintai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document