HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3967 of 2009 Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.257 of 2007 aggrieved by the order dated 11-08-2008 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, as confirmed by the VI Additional District Judge, (III-FTC) Warangal, at Mahabubabad, by order dated 13-02-2009, passed in C.M.A.No.63 of 2008. 2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, which is filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property, a rice mill. The respondent-rice mill consists of 6 partners and there is a partnership deed to that effect. As per the partnership deed, Sri Tallada Venkanna is the managing partner and the aforesaid suit was filed by him. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit that petitioners herein, who are neither partners of the rice mill nor having any interest in the suit schedule property, were interfering with the business of the rice mill. On the aforesaid ground, he filed suit for perpetual injunction and pending suit filed I.A.No.353 of 2007 seeking interim injunction orders under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the I.A., it was the defence of the petitioners herein that they were the power of attorney holders on behalf of other partners, namely Sri Gondrala Srinivas, Sri G. Ambareesha, Sri G. Prasad and Sri G. Godamma. The trial court, having recorded a finding that as on the date of filing of the suit there was no power of attorney and also on the ground that the petitioners herein have no right or interest to interfere with the respondent-rice mill, granted injunction by order dated 11-07-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred civil miscellaneous appeal before the VI Addl. District Judge (III-FTC) Warangal, in C.M.A.No.63 of 2008. Even the lower appellate court, while recording a finding that the petitioners-defendants are not the partners of the rice mill and the partnership deed indicates that Sri Tallada Venkanna is the managing partner, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the specific evidence with regard to registration of the power of attorney, the lower appellate court ought to have taken the same into consideration and set aside the injunction ordered by the trial court. It is further submitted that as much as the power of attorney is already executed by some of the partners in favour of the petitioners, they are to be treated as co-owners along with the respondent, in which event the trial court erred in granting injunction and even the lower appellate court has not considered the subsequent events during the pendency of the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that as per the partnership deed, Sri Tallada Venkanna is the managing partner; in that view of the matter, there is no authority for any of the partners to transfer their interest to third parties. It is further submitted that when the suit was filed, interim injunction was sought for and there was neither special power of attorney in favour of the petitioners-defendants nor they were having any other interest; in spite of the same, they were interfering with the business of the respondent-plaintiff-rice mill. 5. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel, it is be noticed that, undisputedly, there is a registered partnership deed as per which Sri Tallada Venkanna is the managing partner of the respondent-plaintiff- rice mill who holds 40 ps. share and is authorized to manage the affairs of the partnership firm. Though it is specifically alleged that there is interference by the respondents without any authority of law, but, the only defence of the petitioners herein that there is a power of attorney executed by some of the partners of the firm. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the suit was filed on 30-10-2007 and special power of attorney was got registered on 29-07-2008. The lower appellate court, having noticed the said dates, has clearly recorded a finding that as on the date of filing the suit, the petitioners were neither the partners nor power of attorney holders, so as to interfere with the business of the respondent-rice mill. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that either the lower appellate court has exceeded its jurisdiction or committed material irregularity, so as to interfere with the impugned order, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that the issues in the suit are to be dealt with independently, on their own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 9, 2009 MRR