Section 53 of the Partnership Act allows for the restraint of a partner from using firm property for his own benefit after dissolution of the firm.

, J.

1. Niranjan Lal plaintiff has approached this Court in this revision petition challenging the orders of the Courts below whereby he was restrained from doing business of selling shoes and Chappals on the frontage of the shop wherein partnership business in the name of Basant Shoe Stores was being run It is not necessary to give facts in detail. Suffice it to sav that a dispute having arisen between Niranjan Lal and Ruchi Ram, preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership was passed and after application was moved for passing final decree, Niranjan Lal plaintiff started using frontage of the shop for selling shoes and chappals. On an application filed by Ruchi Ram purporting to be under Sec.151, C. P. C. , Niranjan Lal plaintiff was restrained from selling shoes and chappals by using frontage of partnership, The appeal filed by Niranjan Lal, plaintiff failed, hence this revision petition

2. Section 53 of the Partnership Act reads as under : "53 Right to restrain from use of firm name or firm property : After a firm is dissolved, every partner or his representative may in the absence of a contract between the partners to the contrary, restrain any other partner or his representative from carrying on a similar business in the firm name or from using any other property of the firm for his own benefit, until the affairs of the firm have been completely wound up : Provided that where any partner or his representative has brought the goodwill of the firm, nothing in this section shall affect his right to use the firm name. "

3. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that after a firm is dissolved, an injunction can be granted to one of the partners either from using the firm name or from using any of the property of the firm for his own benefit. Present is a case which would be covered by the latter class i e. user of any property of the firm for the benefit of one of the partners. Both the courts below exercised jurisdiction vested in them in granting the injunction and I find no ground to interfere with the same. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.