S.N. Modi, J.
1. Vijay Kumar, Rishab Das and Jai Dev entered into a partnership to carry on business in patroleum products at Ganganagar under the name and style of M/s Jai Dev Jain & Co. On 6-7-71 Vijay Kumar served a notice to other partners by which he dissolved the partnership and called upon the partners to settle the accounts. Ultimately Vijay Kumar filed a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership. He also moved an application for appointment of a receiver. The court allowed the application and one Shri H.M. Chopra was appointed receiver to manage the partnership business. On 17-1-1973 a preliminary decree was passed in the suit whereby (he share of Vijay Kumar in the partnership business was declared as 34 paisa and that of Rishabdas and Jaidev was declared as 38 paisa each. The trial court also appointed a Commissioner to go into the accounts of the partnership business. The Commissioner was directed to submit his report before 304-1973. The receiver Shri H.M. Chopra moved an application on 2-1-1973 alleging that defendant Jai Dev was interfering in the management of the partnership business and he was unable to carry on his duties as receiver unless Jai Dev was restrained from interfering with the partnership business. The receiver also suggested that in case Jai Dev was not restrained from interfering with the partnership business an order be passed for winding up the business. This application was supported by Jaidev and opposed by Rishabdas. The plaintiff Vijay Kumar also supported the request for winding up the business. Rishab Das while opposing the application also showed his eagerness to be appointed as receiver in place of Shri H.M. Chopra. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties ordered that the partnership business be wound up. He further directed the receiver to compete the account books and submit the same within 15 days Section The court also ordered the receiver to prepare a list of creditors arid debtors of the partnership business and submit the same in the court. Dis-satisfied with the said order, Rishab Das preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar who came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to wind up the partnership business. He directed the trial court to remove the un-willing receiver Shri H.M. Chopra and appoint in his place any other person as receiver. Rishab Das and Jai Dev have preferred two separate revision applications against the said order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Rishab Das has prayed that Shri H M. Chopra should not be removed from the office of the receiver. Jai Dev has challenged the correctness of the order setting aside the order of winding up of the partnership business. According to him the receiver should be asked to wind up the partnership business. As both these revision petitions arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of together by this judgment.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. I first take up the revision application filed by Jai Dev. His prater is that the receiver should be asked to wind up the partnership business. The court has passed a preliminary decree and appointed a commissioner to go into the accounts of the partnership business and submit his report. There is no specific direction in the preliminary decree for winding up business. The business can be wound up only after the commissioner has submitted his report and in the manner suggested by the commissioner and approved by the court. The order of winding up of the partnership business being contrary to the preliminary decree was rightly reversed by the first appellate court. The revision application filed by Jai Dev therefore deserves to be dismissed.
3. I now take up the revision application filed by the Rishab Das Hit prayer is that Shri H.M. Chopra who is looking after the partnership business as receiver should not be removed from the office of the receiver. The learned Additional District Judge has recommended removal of the receiver on the ground that the receiver is unwilling to work. I am told that Shri H.M. Chopra showed his un-willingness to work only on account of the interference in his work by Shri Jai Dev. None of the partners has doubted the integrity of the receiver Shri H.M. Chopra. In absence of such allegation it would not be in the interest of the partners to remove him from the office. The trial court shall enquire from Shri H.M. Chopra whether he is willing to work as receiver or not. If he shows his unwillingness then he may be removed from the office and any other suitable person be appointed in his place after notice to all the parties. But in case Shri H.M. Chopra is willing to work as receiver he may be retained as receiver.
4. In the result, the revision application filed by Jai Dev is dismissed and that filed by Rishabdas is disposed of as directed above. The parties shall bear their own costs in both the revision applications.