JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant in COS No. 6 of 2019 challenging the order dated 17.03.2020 passed in I.A.No. 223 of 2019, whereby the application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the Special Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed COS No.06 of 2019 against the defendant/petitioner for dissolution of the partnership firm and consequently to partition the properties belonging to the partnership firm described in the plaint schedule into two equal shares and put the plaintiffs in possession of their respective shares; also directing the defendant/petitioner to render the accounts for the period commencing from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2018 and to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- being the half share of the plaintiffs in the profits of the firm during the said period.

4. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit is that the 1st plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership and agreed to do business in the name and style of Hindustan Construction Chemicals and Allied Products for manufacturing and marketing construction Chemicals and Allied products. The 1st plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership deed on 26.02.2004, providing that the partnership shall be at will. The management of the firm shall be by both the partners. The 1st plaintiff and the defendant invested funds towards the share capital equally. The 1st plaintiff has contributed equally towards the working capital. The partnership was reconstituted by induction of the 2nd plaintiff as the third partner in the firm. Accordingly a reconstituted partnership deed was executed by the plaintiffs and the defendant on 08.09.2006. As per the terms of the reconstituted partnership deed the profit and loss in the firm shall be apportioned in the ratio of 50% to the defendant 45% to the 1st plaintiff and 5% to the 2nd plaintiff. All the three partners are the working partners empowered to represent the firm with equal rights. The business was running in profits. While so, certain disputes arose between the partners. The plaintiffs permitted the defendant to continue the business with an understanding to apportion the profit and loss in the proportion agreed. Mediation was held in the year 2010. It was resolved to dissolve the partnership. A dissolution deed dated 24.04.2010 was executed by the partners. The dissolution deed between the partners was however not acted upon. Since the year 2010 the defendant alone is running the business without intervention of the plaintiffs. The defendant did not furnish the accounts to the plaintiffs and seek their approval. The defendant is misconducting the management of the business to the detriment of the firm. The plaintiffs got issued a Lawyers notice demanding the defendant to dissolve the partnership and for furnishing the accounts of the firm for the period commencing from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2017. However, the defendant neither delivered possession of “B” schedule property nor registered dissolution deed with Registrar Firms. As such, the dissolution deed dated 24.4.2010 was not acted upon and is non-est in the eye of law. Since a partnership was not legally dissolved, the plaintiffs continued to be the partners in the partnership firm. The plaintiffs are not interested in continuing the firm. The defendant has not been submitting the accounts ever since 2010 in spite of the demands made by the plaintiffs but is liable to furnish the accounts to the remaining partners. The defendant failed in obligation to furnish the accounts. The plaintiffs seek the interference of the