The main legal point established in the judgment is that the agreement dated 28.11.1992 established a valid partnership between the parties, and the suit for injunction against a partner is not legally maintainable. The court also clarified that the agreement did not violate public policy and was valid under the law.

R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment I dispose of two Civil Revisions i.e. C.R. No. 2768 of 1994 titled Naresh Kumar v. Sarwan Kumar and others and C.R. No. 3208 of 1994 titled Sarwan Kumar and others v. Naresh Kumar as in my opinion, both the revisions can be disposed of by one common judgment. It is true that both the impugned orders have arisen separately from two separate suits but the decision of one has a direct bearing on the other, therefore, I am taking up both these Civil Revisions together.

2. First of all, I would like to say that Civil Revision No. 3208 of 1994 Sarwan Kumar etc. v. Naresh Kumar has arisen from the judgment dated 13.8.1994, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who affirmed the order dated 23.7.1994 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Phul, who, allowed the application of Shri Naresh Kumar plaintiff under Order 40 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and appointed a receiver who was directed to take over the possession of the business and record of the firm.

3. Civil Revision No. 2768 of 1994 titled Naresh Kumar v. Sarwan Kumar and others has been directed against the judgment dated 5.3.1994 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda, who affirmed the order dated 19.2.1994 passed by the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda who granted the stay application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. of Shri Sarwan Kumar and Shri Naresh Kumar was restrained from interfering in the running and working of the gas agency run by Shri Sarwan Kumar and his employees.

4. The first suit was instituted by Shri Sarwan Kumar that was a suit for permanent injunction vide which he made a prayer that defendants S/Shri Naresh Kumar, Ram Singh and Kirpal Singh be restrained from operating the gas agency known as M/s Sukhda Gas Service (Distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) situated at Rampura Phul and defendants be also restrained from interfering in the running/working of the gas agency which is run by the plaintiff and his employees near bus stand Ram Pura Phul and in the godown which is also located at Bathinda-Barnala Road. Shri Sarwan Kumar in his suit alleged that he was alloted the distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas at Ram Pura Phul being proprietor of M/s Sukhda Gas service. The licence was granted to him in the year 1984 by Indian Oil Corporation. He was running the gas agency since the date of his allotment. However, he appointed defendant No. 1 Shri Naresh Kumar as General Attorney vide General Power of Attorney dated 30.11.1992. In this manner, respondent No. 1 started working as a Manager. Respondent No. 1 employed respondents No. 2 and 3 as his clerks. Thereafter, the plaintiff got cancelled the power of attorney dated 30.11.1992 on 8.9.93. A publication was made in the Daily Jagbani dated 9.11.1993. The plaintiff is running the gas agency peacefully whereas defendant No. 1 has no right or title in the said agency or in the show room or in the godown. Defendant is intentionally interfering in the working of the gas agency and allied establishment. Therefore, the defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. praying that till the disposal of the suit the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession.

5. Notice of the application was given to the respondent who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court and he is estopped from filing the suit. In fact, the plaintiff has entered into partnership agreement dated 28.11.1992 and by virtue of that agreement, the defendant has invested the total amount for the working of the agency and defendant was specifically authorised to do all acts which the plaintiff could do under the said agreement. The defendant also filed a suit at Ram Pura Phul against the present plaintiff in which