Mathur, C.J. :- This is a revision by Radha Krishna Mehra to challenge the order dated 2-7-1971 of the City Magistrate, Varanasi, dropping the proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the dispute relates to partnership property.

2. The material facts of the case are that Radha Krishna Mehra and Mohkam Chand Mehra were partners of the firm Mehra Silk Mills in the city of Varanasi. Certain disputes arose between the partners, who it may be mentioned, are brothers and, on 17-12-1970 the son of the applicant, namely, Kali Charan Mehra, lodged a report with the police. The mill had been closed and both the brothers had put in their locks on the gate of the mill. The police, thereupon submitted a report for taking proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. in respect of the property as the dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace. The City Magistrate passed a preliminary order and attached the Mehra Silk Mills and gave it in the custody of Kashi Nath as Supurdar. The parties were directed to file their written statements and affidavit. But meanwhile the applicant opposed the appointment of the Supurdar as, according to him, Kashi Nath was the man of the opposite parties. The matter eventually came up to the High Court and it was ordered that the Supurdar be replaced. It was thereafter that on the application of Mohkam Chand Mehra, opposite party No. 2, the City Magistrate passed the impugned order holding that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. were not maintainable as they related to partnership property. The applicant challenged the order before the Sessions Judge though unsuccessfully. He then moved the present revision before the High Court.

3. The learned single Judge hearing the revision has, on account of conflict in two Single Judge decisions of this Court in Sardar Singh v. State, 1967 All WR (HC) 641 and Ram Shanker Tewari v. State, 1970 Cri LJ 770 (All), referred the revision for hearing by a larger Bench.

4. It is not in dispute that there existed partnership between the brothers. The applicant asserts that there was dissolution of the partnership three or four years back and during the existence of the partnership and even thereafter he was exclusively managing the partnership firm and was in exclusive possession over the Mills. The opposite Party, Mohkam Chand Mehra, on the other hand, says that there has been no dissolution of the partnership and that he is the occupier of the Mills though the partnership business is being managed and in possession of both. It was for this reason that he had moved the present application before the City Magistrate for dropping the proceeding under Sec. 145, Cr. P.C.

5. Section 12 of the Partnership Act, 1932, clearly lays down that subject to contract between the partners every partner has a right to take part in the conduct of the business and by virtue of Section 47 thereof the mutual rights and obligations of the partners continue even after the dissolution of the firm notwithstanding the dissolution so far as may be necessary to wind up the affairs of the firm and to complete transactions begun but unfinished at the time of the dissolution but not otherwise. It is not in dispute that there has not been settlement of accounts between the partners and there has not been winding up of the partnership business. Consequently, every partner shall have the right to take part in the conduct of the business, after the dissolution in the same manner as he could have prior to the dissolution. Therefore, if there be no contract between the partners that one of them shall be in possession and shall manage the business of the firm, every partner shall be deemed to have a right to take part in the conduct of the business and ordinarily it can be assumed that every partner is in possession of the assets of the partnership firm.

6. In proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P.C. the Courts are concerned with the question of possession and not the title