' This civil revision calls in question the judgment/decree dated the 18th of December, 1989, of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, whereby the petitioner-appellant's appeal was dismissed upholding the decision of the trial Court.
2. It was a suit for partition to the extent of 9/24 share in the property in dispute brought by the petitioner lady. Her case was that she and defendants Nos.1, 2 and 4 were partners of a firm which held the property and that now when it was dissolved, she could ask for separate share. Defendant No,4, however, sold his respective share in favour of defendant No,3 Muhammad Din who was an outsider. One of the stipulations of the contract of partnership was that none of the partners could sell his interest in the property vesting in the firm in favour of an outsider. She asserted that since defendant No,3 was an outsider, he could not acquire any interest in the share sold in his favour by defendant No,4 and that in his place she was entitled to get it on payment of the same consideration amount, namely, Rs,5,000.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was urged on their behalf that since the partnership stood dissolved with effect from the 31st of March, 1974, the restriction imposed upon the partners' right to make sales of their interest in the firm in favour of outsiders had become inoperative and that the sale made by defendant No,4 of his share to defendant No,3 was quite valid.
4. The Courts below concurrently held that after dissolution of the firm, there was no idea to insist upon a preferential right to acquire the share of defendant No,4 on payment of the price received by him from defendant No,3. Consequently, her suit to the extent of this relief was dismissed.
However, a preliminary decree was passed in her favour upholding her right to get 9/24 share of the property partitioned off. Her appeal also failed.
5. Mr. Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner referred to section 47 of the Partnership Act, 1932, claiming that the mutual rights and obligations as envisaged by the partnership deed would continue to be effective even after dissolution thereof and that she had every right to purchase the share of defendant No,4 in preference to the outsider like Muhammad Din defendant No,3. I have perused the said provision. No doubt, it provides for continuing of the mutual rights and obligations of the partners eveh after the dissolution of the firm, but this continuance is intended only for the purpose of winding up the business and to complete the transactions which may have been left unfinished at the time of the dissolution of the firm. The sale made by defendant No,4 in favour of defendant No,3 was completed on the 16th of September, 1982, that is some eight years after the dissolution of the firm taking place on the 31st of March, 1974. Obviously, it was not a transaction which was left unfinished or incomplete at the time of dissolving the firm. For this simple reason, there was no occasion whatsoever to invoke section 47 ibid.
6. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.