ORDER
D.K. Jain, J.
1. In this suit for rendition of accounts and in the alternative for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts, plaintiff No.1, namely, Smt. Jai Rani Puri, has filed this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to defendant No.1 to pay from the profits of the firm namely, M/s Raj Kumar Singh Puri, atleast a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of ad hoc arrangement and subject to adjustment of accounts on final settlement/rendition of accounts, with a further direction for payment of Rs.5,000/- per month to her as maintenance.
2. The said firm came into existence on 1 April 1963 when a partnership deed was executed between Ram Kumar Singh Puri (husband of plaintiff No.1/applicant), Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri and Vinod Kumar Puri, defendant No.1 herein, each having a share of 33-1/3%. There was a change in the constitution of the firm on 1 April 1976 when Shri Arun Puri, defendant No.2 herein and son of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri was taken as a partner with 14% interest in the firm. Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri’s interest in the firm was reduced to 20% and that of Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri and Vinod Kumar Puri to 33% each. Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri died on 30 December 1989, leaving behind the applicant his widow, S/Shri Vivek Puri and Arun Puri as his sons and Smt. Arti Kapoor his daughter, plaintiffs No.1, 2, defendants No.2 and 5 respectively. On the death of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri, the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 5 inherited his 20% share in the firm. Shri Arun Puri, defendant No.2, besides his 14% independent share, also became entitled to 1/4th share as a legal heir of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri. According to the plaintiffs, though the firm stood dissolved on 30 December 1989, the surviving partners, namely, Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri, Vinod Kumar Puri and Arun Puri continued to carry on the same business without rendering any account and paying any share to the legal representatives of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri. On 8 December 1992 Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri also expired, leaving behind his son Manoj Puri and daughter Manisha Puri, defendants No. 3 and 4 herein. His wife had predeceased him. The stand of the plaintiffs is that on the death of Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri, the firm again stood dissolved but the surviving partners, namely Vinod Kumar Puri and Arun Puri continued to carry on the same business under the same name and style without rendering any accounts to the legal representatives of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri and Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri. According to them all efforts for settlement of accounts having failed, they had no option but to file the present suit.
3. The suit is primarily being resisted by defendant No.1, inter alia, on the pleas that:(i) the partners of the said firm were also the members of a Joint Hindu Family, representing three branches of the family headed by late Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri, late Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri and Shri Vinod Kumar Puri, defendant No.1; (ii) after the death of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri, there was a family settlement amongst the members of the Joint Hindu Family and all the properties belonging to the joint family, including the business and assets of the said firm were agreed to be partitioned amongst the family members; (iii) in the family settlement, dated 25 October 1990, the important terms/points of settlement were duly reduced into writing and were signed by the representatives of all the three branches of the Joint Hindu Family and (iv) the properties and assets of the firm were also partitioned in the said family settlement and all its assets and liabilities as on 30 December 1989 were taken over by defendant No.1. Thus the stand of the said defendant has been that the assets of the firm as also other family properties having been partitioned vide the said family settlement, there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs.
4. Along with the suit the plaintiffs filed two applications, namely, (i) IA No.196/93 – for appointment of a receiver and in the alternative for an ad interim injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from disposing off or parting with possession of the firm and its assets and also from operating various bank accounts and (ii) IA No.197/93 – for appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the properties mentioned in Schedule I to the plaint and to submit a report regarding the possession of the same. Both the said applications are still pending disposal, though vide order dated 7 January 1993 a Local Commissioner was appointed to carry out inspection as prayed for in IA No.197/93, with the result that defendant No.1 continues to run the affairs of the said firm.
5. It appears that while arguments in IA No.196/93 were being heard, on 13 May 1996, with the consent of the parties, as a purely ad hoc measure/arrangement, defendant No.1 was directed to pay to the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 a total sum of Rs.24,000/-, i.e. Rs.4,000/- to each of them. Again on 26 July 1996, at the suggestion of the Court, defendant No.1 agreed to pay a further sum of Rs.3,000/- to each of the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5.
6. During the pendency of the said two applications, plaintiff No.1 has now filed the present application, inter alia, stating that: (i) she being an aged lady is very sick, suffering from hypertension, heart disease and since October 1996, she has been suffering from acute eye problem for which she has been treated at AIIMS and has also undergone some operations; (ii) she has been advised to go to Madras for treatment of her left eye; (iii) she has already spent about Rs.1,02,000/- and would require a further sum of Rs.75,000/- immediately for the treatment of her eye, which funds she does not possess. In the application it is also stated that plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.2 and 5 being her children have no objection if from their share the said amount is advanced to her for treatment and further, defendant No.4 has also no objection if the said money is advanced from her share as well.
7. Reply to the application has been filed only on behalf of defendant No.1, wherein, though there is no specific denial about applicant’s illness and various treatments taken by her and mentioned in the application, the grant of any relief to the applicant is opposed, inter alia, on the grounds that: (i) the partition of the properties including that of the assets of the firm has already taken place by way of affronted family settlement and that the parties being in possession of their respective shares in terms of the settlement, which has already been acted upon in part, they would be entitled only to the amount/share, if any, in terms of the family settlement; (ii) even if the plaintiffs succeed in the present suit, they would be entitled to the share of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri in the partnership business on the date of dissolution and nothing more, which is a paltry sum of Rs.825.99p; (iii) unless and until the controversies involved in the present suit are resolved the plaintiffs or other defendants would not be entitled to any share/money under any circumstance whatsoever and (iv) the applicant has resources to meet medical expenses as her both the sons are gainfully employed, plaintiff No.2 is a Chartered Accountant and defendant No.2 is engaged in the trading and investment of shares.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and defendant No.1.
9. Mr. J.K.Seth, learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously urged that on the death of S/Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri and Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri, the firm stood dissolved but no accounts were taken and without partitioning the assets of the firm and rendering the true and correct account to each of the partners’, defendant No.1 cannot be permitted to continue to run the business of the old firm from the same premises and operate the old accounts as if the erstwhile firm still exists. He asserts that there was no family settlement as alleged by defendant No.1; Shri Vivek Puri, plaintiff No.2 had no authority to enter into settlement on behalf of the applicant and defendants No.2 and 5; the assets of the joint family could not be mixed up with the assets of the firm and in any case the alleged family settlement has admittedly not been acted upon.
10. On the other hand Shri Y.K.Jain, learned Senior counsel for the contesting defendant No.1, assisted by Shri P.K.Jain, Advocate, maintains that the family settlement dated 25 October 1990 is binding on the applicant and other members of her branch as Shri Vivek Puri, plaintiff No.2, signatory to it, does not challenge the same. It is, however, not disputed that the said settlement has not yet been fully implemented. Learned counsel for the said defendant has also submitted that in the absence of any express provision in the Code, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant any interim relief in a suit for partition.
11. Taking the last point regarding the maintainability of the application first, I feel that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, , wherein while elaborately dealing with the scope of Section 151, CPC and holding that the inherent power of the Court is not restricted by Section 94 of the Code, it was observed that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, for the simple reason that the legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them; an order under Section 151, CPC could be passed in appropriate cases granting interim relief by way of payment of maintenance during the pendency of a suit for partition. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the objection regarding the maintainability of this application for interim relief.
12. The only question that remains to be considered is as to whether the present case is one which can be said to be an appropriate case for the grant of interim relief, as prayed for. The stand of the applicant is that neither on the death of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri in 1989 nor on the death of Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri in 1992 any accounts have been taken by the legal heirs of the deceased partners. On the contrary, according to the contesting defendant No.1, a family settlement with regard to the assets of the firm and other assets belonging to the joint family was arrived at on 25 October 1990, with the help of a common family friend, which is challenged by the applicant. Whether there was a family settlement or not is a matter of trial but the fact remains that even according to counsel for defendant No.1, the said settlement has not been given full effect to inasmuch as some properties, subject matter of the alleged partition, still remain to be sold and the payment to be made to some of the parties, including the applicant and her children. On the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for defendant No.1 was asked to furnish details of amounts due to the partners of the erstwhile firm or the legal representatives as per the relevant balance sheet or the family settlement, which has been done. Excluding the paltry sum of Rs.825.99p which has been shown as due to Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri, as per the said settlement a sum of Rs.62,923.03p along with some other amounts has been shown as due to late Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri and further a sum of Rs.33,754.59 is stated to be due to Shri Arun Puri, defendant No.2 herein. It is also not in dispute that some additional amount, which learned counsel for defendant No.1 could not quantify, still remains to be paid to Shri Vivek Puri, plaintiff No.2 and Shri Arun Puri, defendant No.2 on sale of house at 1114, Chatta Madan Gopal, Delhi.
13. Having regard to the affronted facts and circumstances of the case and the stand of parties, except contesting defendant No.1, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where during the pendency of the suit some interim relief could be granted to the applicant and defendant No.1 shall be directed to pay some amount to the applicant for her medical treatment, particularly when even as per the statement filed by defendant No.1, sufficient amount is still due to be paid by him to defendants No.2, 4 and 5 and the said defendants have no objection to the payment to the applicant even against their shares.
14. Accordingly keeping in view the fact that the applicant’s son namely, Shri Vivek Puri, plaintiff No.2 is a Chartered Accountant and can also support the applicant, I would direct defendant No.1 to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs.50,000/- within four days of receipt of intimation from the applicant about her plans to visit Madras for treatment. Needless to say that this payment would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to final adjustment in the accounts of the plaintiffs, defendants No.2, 4 and 5, as the case may be. However, I do not consider it to be an appropriate case to direct, at this stage, any monthly payment to the applicant as maintenance. Since the affronted amount is being paid to the applicant for meeting medical expenses, it will not be spent for any other purpose and after undergoing treatment at Madras, the applicant shall file an affidavit within two weeks thereof, giving details of the expenses incurred.
The application stands disposed of.