( 1 ) THE firm Sanghi Motors is constituted of seven partners and the business of automobile dealings. It is also holding franchise/ dealership of M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. for the distribution and sale of jieps and F. C. Trucks for the areas of Union Territory of Delhi, Chandigarh, Haryana and Punjab. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are stated to form one group and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as the other group in this partnership. The latter, however, it is alleged attempted to undermine the partnership business and succeeded in obtaining cancellation of franchise/dealership of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. They also attempted to obstruct the operation of the bank accounts of the firm at different places and refused to sign the requisite bank papers which had been render- red necessary because of rise in price of vehicles. It was latter that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 succeeded in getting the said Franchise/ dealciship restored.

( 2 ) THE present suit was, therefore, brought by the plaintiff in August, 1980, seeking following relief : -

"that a decree for injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from writing any letter or sending any communication to bank of Rajasthan, Janpath, New Delhi, for getting bank operation of the partnership account with the said bank closed or suspended and also from writing any letter or sending any communication to Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Bombay for the purpose of getting dealership terminated and for getting the supplies of jeeps and F. C. trucks closed, stopped or suspended to the partnership firm and/or from taking any steps, whatsoever, by which the bank operation of any of the bankers of the partnership firm closed or suspended or the dealership with the partnership firm from Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, in any manner, prejudicially or adversely affected, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The cost of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiff. Any other relief which this Hon ble Court deems just and fit in the circumstances of the case be also granted to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6. "

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has been claiming that he is Managing Partner of the Firm, and, as such, he is entitled to manage its affairs.

( 4 ) ALONG with the suit a petition for interim injunction was moved (I. A. 2592 of 1980), which ultimately came up for hearing before J. D. Jain, J. His Lordships by a detailed order dated 16-1-1981, directed as under:-

" (1 ). The plaintiffs shall be entitled to operate the overdraft facility to the full limit of Rs. 18,000,00 (Rupees eighteen lacs only) in connection with the business of the partnership firm and the defendant was not in any manner interfere with or withdraw the personal guarantee furnished by them to their bankers so as to cause any hindrance or obstruction M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and other parties having business dealings with the firm, till the decision of the suit. (2 ). The plaintiff shall, however, furnish an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 (Rupees five lacs only) to this court undertaking to indemnify the defendants for any act of misfeasance or gross negligence on his part. The indemnity bond shall be fur nished with one surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar within a month, failing which the ad interim injunction shall stand vacated. 3. The plaintiff shall further maintain true and faithful accounts of all the business and shall submit a true statement of partnership account to this court every quarterly ; the first such statement of accounts for the period ending 31st December, 1980, to be furnished by 15th February, 1981 and the subsequent statements shall be furnished within a month succeeding the last date of each quarter, the first such quarter to be reckoned as ending on 31st March, 1981 and so on and so forth". During the course of this order, the learned Judge was of the prima facie view that