' The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition seeking revision of the order of the learned Civil Judge, Multan, dated the 15th February, 1984, rejecting the petitioner's application for securing decision in the suit filed by the respondent against him for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts according to clause 5 of the deed of partnership, Exh. D. 1 are these. The parties entered into partnership business and executed partnership deed Exh. D 1, on the 5th July, 1968. In the suit brought by the respondent for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the petitioner consent preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial Court on the 4th December, 1979. The petitioner, as per statement of his counsel, abandoned all other objections raised in the written statement. The respondent's share in the partnership business was settled at one-third. A commission was issued for taking accounts.
2. On the 1st March, 1980, the petitioner moved application that the suit should be decided according to what was contained in clause 5 of the partnership deed, Exh. D 1. The respondent opposed the application which, according to him, was aimed at getting the preliminary decree amended and removed.
3. It appears that some extraneous matters, not pertinent for the decision of the application, were argued before the learned trial Court. While dismissing the application the learned trial Court remarked that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the valuation of the suit property was still Rs, 12,00,000, as originally envisaged in the partnership deed, was not tenable and that 'its value would be determined on the market value of the same by open auction and not by the terms of Exh. D 1 which indicated only the initial cost of the property.'
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has ordered putting the suit property to open auction cannot be accepted at face value because the learned Court has passed no such order. Actually what it intended saying was that the value of the property would be such as it would fetch if it were to be sold by open auction. The petitioner's application before the learned trial Court was just redundant because the share having been fixed by the preliminary decree the course of the proceedings of the suit was to be regulated under the decree and not by clause 5 of the deed of 'partnership. No case for interference in revision is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine.