K.C. Banu, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order and decree, dated 06-06-2014 in I.A. No. 2437 of 2013 in O.P. No. 1949 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Originally petitioner herein (1st respondent in I.A.) filed the above O.P. No. 1949 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeking the following reliefs.

"1. To appoint Advocate Commissioner to forthwith inspect the office of the 1st respondent situated at 101,102, Venkatarama Towers, M. No. 3-6-69, Opposite Old Skyline Theatre Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-29 as well as the residences/offices of the respondents No. 2 to 14 and seize all the books of accounts, vouchers, cash books, cheque books, income-tax returned, assessment orders, audited balance sheets and all other material evidence pertaining to the 1st respondent firm both paper and electronic form, including the hard diskettes either installed or separately kept in the systems and also portable hard disks found during the execution of warrant in all such premises along with the all the books of account and submit the same in a sealed cover before the Court to be sent to the Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes between the parties.

2. To direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 14 to cooperate with the Advocate-Commissioner and deliver all other documents and books mentioned in clause (1) above to the Advocate-Commissioner.

3. To grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 from anyway dealing with the affairs of the 1st respondent firm either by way of alienating the assets including petition 'A' schedule properties or withdrawing the funds or incurring any liabilities or obligations on behalf of or in the name of 1st respondent firm with or without any prefixes or suffixes or registration numbers.

4. To grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 from entering into any transaction or deed or document of conveyance in respect of item No. 1 of the petition 'A' schedule in favour of the respondent No. 15 or any other person.

5. To direct the respondent Nos. 19 to 26 not to permit any further transaction hereafter, particularly any debit or withdrawal of funds or by way of overdraft or other kinds of advances, except those permitted by this Court.

6. To direct the respondent Nos. 16 to 18 not to enter into any further transactions or documents with the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 in respect of the ventures under development with the 1st respondent except with the prior permission of this Court.

6A To grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 27 and 28 from dealing with or entering into any transactions by way of alienation or otherwise creating any interest in respect of item Nos. 1 to 3 of the petition 'A' schedule in favour of any persons

7. And to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. It is averred in the O.P. that 1st respondent firm was originally constituted as a partnership firm under a partnership deed, dated 19-04-1988 of which respondents 2 to 6 along with the respondents 11 to 13 were partners. It was under the partnership deed, dated 27-11-1991 under which Smt. Ashrafunnisa Begum, Sultan Naseeruddin and Sultan Rasheemuddin were inducted as partners. Again it was reconstituted under the partnership deed, dated 02-07-1992 under which the petitioner along with respondents 7 to 9 were inducted as partners and respondent No. 10 who was minor then admitted to the benefits of partnership of the 1st respondent firm. Under the same partnership deed, respondents 11 to 13 along with Smt. Ashrafunnisa Begum, Sultan Naseeruddin and Sultan Rasheemuddin retired from the 1st respondent firm. Respondents 11 to 13 along with respondents 2 to 6 are now claiming that the firm, which was reconstituted and stood dissolved long back by partnership dated 27-11-1991 is still subsisting and is distinct