HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.5258 & 5465 OF 2009 DATE:05-12-2009 C.R.P. No.5258 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Runkani Venkateswara Rao & 2 others …Petitioners AND Routhu Srinivasa Rao & others. …Respondents C.R.P. No. 5465 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Runkani Venkateswara Rao & 2 others …Petitioners AND Routhu Srinivasa Rao & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.5258 & 5465 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since these two revisions are interconnected and arising out of the very same proceedings, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. These revisions are directed by the defendants against the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 09.09.2009 dismissing I.A.Nos.1757 of 2009 and 1758 of 2009 in O.S.No.680 of 2009C.R.P.No.4459 of 2009 filed by third parties-respondents 1 to 5 herein seeking their impleadment in the suit as defendants 4 to 8 and respondents 4 to 8 in I.A.No.1651 of 2009 respectively. The respondents 1 to 5-third parties to the suit who filed the impugned I.As., did not choose to file any revisions against the said orders, but the revision petitioners who are the defendants in the suit filed these revisions. One Routhu Venkateswara Rao, Managing Partner of plaintiff-M/s.Urvasi Enterprises filed the above suit for injunction restraining the revision petitioners- defendants from interfering with the business of firm or from carrying on such business by themselves. The third parties-respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the impugned I.As. claiming that Routhu Venkateswara Rao who filed the suit representing the plaintiff firm is having only 20% share in the firm, and that they are having the remaining 80% share in the firm in pursuance of partnership deed, dated 1.1.1975 followed by supplementary agreement, dated 6.3.1978, and that they leased out the premises to the defendants to run the canteen for sale of eatable, refreshments, beverages and soft drinks in the canteen for their theatre complex and therefore, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Admittedly, under the registered partnership deed, dated 1.1.1975 and in the supplementary agreement, dated 6.3.1978, Routhu Venkateswara Rao was given authority by the remaining partners to do business affairs including the right to sue and liability to be sued for and on behalf of the plaintiff firm. Since the said partnership has not been dissolved nor there was a constitution of new firm authorizing another person to represent the plaintiff firm to sue or to be sued, certainly said Routhu Venkateswara Rao is entitled to file the suit against the persons who interfere with the business of the firm. In view of the same, the lower Court rightly dismissed the impugned I.As. as the inter se dispute cannot be the subject-matter of the suit filed for injunction simplicitor against the petitioners herein. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 05, 2009 Tsr.