R.N. Aggarwal, J.
(1) -THIS in an application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. The petitioner Suresh Nanda, his sister-in-law Mrs. Mona Nanda, Rajiv Choudhry, Sudhir Choudhry and Mrs. Amrit Choudhry were partners of the firm M/s. Eureka Sales Corporation.
(2) On 26th May 77, Rajiv Choudhry, Sudhir Choudhry & Mrs. Amrit Choudhry filed a suit (suit No. 450. of 1977) against Suresh Nanda and Mrs. Mona Nanda for a declaration that the defendants retired from the partnership with effect from 17th May 1977 and are, thereforee, no longer its partners. The allegation made was that the respondents had, after accepting Rs. I 50,000.00 , retired from the partnership. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 rules 1,2 and 3 for restraining the defendants from interfering with the working of the partnership. The said application came up for consideration before Pritam Singh Safeer. J. on 4th August 1977 and His Lordship allowed the application on the conditions. Firstly that the plaintiffs shall furnish statements of accounts of the partnership after every period of 3 months during the pendency of the suit, and secondly that the petitioner and his sister-in law shall be given notice, by registered post, of each meeting held by the plaintiffs and the petitioner and his sister-in-law shall be entitled to attend the meeting but they shall have no right to participate in the meeting. The above order was further clarified on 25th October 1977 that the plaintiffs shall submit the statement of accounts for the period 26th May 1977 (date of the institution of the suit) to 26th August 1977 by 23rd November 1977 and thereafter they shall keep on submitting the statement of accounts for subsequent periods of 3 months.
(3) No statement of accounts was filed by the plaintiffs by 23rd November 1977. However, a statement of accounts was filed on 5th December 1977 which according to the counsel for the petitioner is not a statement of accounts, thereafter no statement of accounts was filed by the plaintiffs. Mr. Kumar contends that the petitioner and his sister-in-law were given no notice of the meetings, on the other hand Mr. Gupta, counsel for the respondents/condemners contends that in fact no meeting was held after the order dated 4th August 1977.
(4) On 6th February 1978 the suit was allowed to be withdrawn. The order reads as under :
'Accepting the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff, the suit is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of without prejudice to the averments contained in the plaint. Plaintiff can file fresh suit. No orders as to costs, 1.As are also disposed of.'
On 15th February 1978 the present petition was filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act which was amended on 20th March 1978.
(5) After the filing of the aforesaid application, two suits have been filed by the parties; one by the petitioner (suit No. 152 of 1978) for rendition of accounts and the second by the opposite party (suit No. 151 of 1978) for declaration and injunction. It is stated at the bar that the petitioner had in the suit filed by him filed an application for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to run the business of the partnership. The said application was dismissed by Prithvi Raj. J. on 25th May 1978. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of Prithvi Raj. J. which, it is stated, was dismissed with the modification that the defendants therein shall give inspection of the books of accounts on every second and fourth Saturday.
(6) After hearing Mr. S.N.Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.M. Gupta on behalf of the respondents and on giving the case my careful thought. I am of the view that the present is not a case where contempt action should be taken. It is significant that the petitioner took no action against the respondents after they had defaulted in filing the statement of accounts and he has filed the present petition only after the respondents withdrew the suit on 6th February 1978. Action under the Contempt of Courts Act is not to be taken to serve the personal ends of the parties but only when the act complained of is of such a nature that it interferes with administration of justice. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.