JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

1. By this common order, above captioned revision petitions arising from the same order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure P-1 in CR No. 1549 of 2024 and Annexure P-5 in CR No.3703 of 2024) passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 82 of 2023 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 88 of 2023, involving similar facts and issues, shall be disposed of Additionally, Civil Revision No. 1549 of 2024, challenging the order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P-10) shall also be disposed of along with this order.

2. For easy understanding, parties to the present revision petitions shall be referred to as per their original status before learned Trial Court and for the sake of reference, facts are being taken from CR No. 3703 of 2024.

3. The facts in brief are that Mahender Singh, petitioner/plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit (Annexure P-2) for rendition of account with consequential relief of permanent injunction against Pardhan Bhatha Company (defendant No.l), a brick kiln, through its proprietor Parkash; Parkash (defendant No.2) and Anil Kumar (defendant No.3), raising the averments that Parkash (defendant No.2) verbally gave the brick kiln on rent to him and Anil Kumar (defendant No.3) from 26.11.2018 to 26.11.2023 for an amount of Rs.9 Lakh. In this partnership, the petitioner/plaintiff was shareholder to the extent of 40% and Anil Kumar (defendant No.3) to the extent of 60%. Both paid the aforesaid amount to Parkash (defendant No.2) and earned their profits in accordance with their respective shares. The agreement was reduced into writing on 14.06.2022 (Annexure P-1 in CR No.3703 of 2024 and Annexure P-2 in CR No. 1549 of 2024), attested by a Notary Public. One of the conditions of agreement was that in case of any dispute between the partners, Parkash (defendant No.2), the owner/proprietor of brick kiln (defendant No. 1) will have a right to take into possession the brick kiln (defendant No. 1) and all the liabilities of brick kiln (defendant No.l) shall be discharged by the sale of the bricks; further that expenses on the settlement of disputes including police or Court cases shall be borne by Anil Kumar (defendant No.3) from his own.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff further averred that defendants connived with each other and stopped paying him his due share from April 2021, leading to strained relations between the parties. Anil Kumar (defendant No.3) had possession of all the account books, despite intervention by respectable and friends, Anil Kumar (defendant No.3) neither gave him any money of his share from the running of the brick kiln, nor render the accounts of the partnership business, forcing the petitioner/plaintiff to file the suit seeking rendition of account and restraining Anil Kumar (defendant No.3) from selling the bricks as well as using the possession of brick kiln to the extent of the share of the petitioner/plaintiff. Along with the main suit, the petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') seeking similar prayer by grant of interim injunction till the decision of the suit by pleading existence of prima facie case; balance of convenience in his favour and irreparable loss to the petitioner/plaintiff, if interim injunction is declined.

5. Upon being put to notice, defendants No.l and 2 appeared and filed written statement. Defendant No.2 admitted ownership of defendant No.l, the brick kiln but denied the existence of any privity of contract with petitioner/plaintiff regarding running of brick kiln (defendant No. 1), and also denied the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff or his control over the brick kiln (defendant No.l). Defendant No.2 further pleaded that, at the petitioner/plaintiff s request and based on assurance that all outstanding dues related to brick kiln (defendant No.l) would be paid, he signed on the writing/agreement dated 14.06.2022, in absence of Anil Kumar (defendant No.3). The defendant No.2 further pleaded