ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This appeal is filed questioning the decree and judgment passed in OS No. 151 of 2015 by the VII Additional District Judge, Ongole. The plaint is filed by one Sri G.V. Ramanaiah, (plaintiff No. 1) and M/s. Golla Chenchaiah, a partnership firm represented by a partner G.V. Ramanaiah. The suit is filed for the following reliefs:

"(a) for grant of specific performance directing the defendants 1 to 7 to come forward for reconstitution of the partnership firm Golla Chenchaiah. In the event of failure on the part of defendants 1 to 7 to get it done through process of Court;

(aa) for mandatory injunction directing the 8th defendant to continue to supply oil to retail outlet of plaintiffs firm (amended as per the orders on IA No. ..... /2015 dated......).

(b) for costs; and

(c) for such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. A reading of the plaint discloses that the suit is filed for specific performance of a partnership agreement. The husband of the second defendant G. Subba Rao died on 13.6.2014. A letter was addressed on 30.7.2014 for reconstitution of proposal of the firm by the 8th defendant. Since then, disputes have arisen. A letter dated 30.7.2014 was addressed by the first plaintiff seeking six months time for reconstitution of the firm. In addition, lawyers' notices were also exchanged between the parties as the defendants did not reconstitute the firm. The exchange of notices were in May, 2015. Hence, the suit was filed for specific performance directing defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to come forward for reconstitution of the partnership firm-plaintiff No. 2. An alternative prayer is also made that in the event of failure of defendant Nos. 1 to 7, then to get the deed of partnership executed through the process of the Court. As defendant No. 8 did not supply the petroleum product an amendment is also sought for adding a prayer of a mandatory injunction against defendant No. 8. The said application was allowed and a prayer for mandatory injunction was permitted to be added. Thereafter, parties went to trial and the suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 22.10.2018. Questioning the same, an appeal was filed.

3. Alongwith the appeal, IA No. 1 of 2018 has been filed seeking a relief of interim mandatory injunction directing respondent No. 8 to continue to supply oil and petrol to the retail outlet of the second appellants-firm, pending disposal of the appeal.

4. To this, a counter-affidavit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 7 opposing the said application. A rejoinder was also filed in IA No. 1 of 2018.

5. The matter was taken up for hearing and this Court has heard Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Sudhir Kumar, and Mahava Rao Nalluri, learned Counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the first appeal is a continuation of the suit. It is his contention that both questions of fact and law can be argued in the first appeal. He submits that there was an interim mandatory injunction directing supply of petroleum products during the pendency of the suit and that a similar order should be allowed to be continued. He also submits that a business which has been run for decades should not be brought to a grinding halt because of the attitude and the non-cooperation of the respondents. He also draws the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in CMA No. 337 of 2017, wherein a Division Bench of this Court directed the 8th respondent to supply the petroleum products. Counsel submits mat initially an order was granted on 3.2.2017 in IA No. 960 of 2017 directing the 8th respondent to supply the petroleum products. Questioning the same, a CMA was filed. In the said CMA, a Division Bench of this Court clearly held that the lower Court did not commit any error in passing the order for supply of the petroleum products. Learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners also relies