ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, filed the above revision assailing the order, dated 21.04.2025, in I.A.No.184 of 2023 in O.S.No.40 of 2022, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The parties to the revision are referred to as per their status in the suit O.S.No.40 of 2022.

3. The plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.40 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, seeking the following reliefs:

(a) To order for the dissolution of 1^st defendant firm M/s Gruhalaxmi Finance., and to direct the 1^st respondent to render the accounts right from the date of its inception, including the plaint schedule property of the 1^st defendant firm till the date of dissolution as the plaintiffs are continuing partners of the said firm;

(b) For grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or altering the plaint schedule property till the completion of proceedings of this suit;

(c) For costs of the suit; and

(d) For such other relief or reliefs which the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice.

4. (a) In the plaint, it was contended, interalia, that the plaintiffs, along with defendants 2 to 9, floated the 1^st defendant firm under a registered partnership deed dated 27.09.1996 (in the cause of action, it was mentioned as 26.07.1997). The firm was reconstituted with the plaintiffs and defendants on 01.10.1998. Plaintiffs hold 12% and 7% shares, respectively. The plaint schedule property was purchased under three registered sale deeds dated 26.07.1997, 29.07.1997, and 30.09.1997 in the name of the 1st defendant firm, represented by the Managing Partner, 2^nd defendant.

(b) During May 2002, plaintiffs and the 8th defendant expressed their willingness to retire from the 1^st defendant firm by referring the matter for settlement to two arbitrators by name Lanka Bavajeenaidu and Putta Anjani Kumar. Accordingly, on 24.05.2002, the defendants 2 and 7 agreed to settle the accounts. The arbitrators prepared a deed showing that the plaintiffs and the 8^th defendant as retiring partners and defendants 2 and 7 as continuing partners. The plaintiffs and the 8^th defendant demanded to settle the accounts. The defendants 2 and 7, without fixing the date for settlement of accounts, asked the plaintiffs, the 8^th defendant and other partners to sign on to the partnership dated 25.04.2002. Plaintiffs and the 8^th defendant have not signed the partnership deed dated 25-4-2002, as it was drafted without finalisation of accounts, and the said transaction was not completed.

(c) The 2^nd defendant, the Managing Partner of D1, used to get the signatures of other partners on blank stamp papers and white papers to suit his convenience and the transactions of the firm. The 2^nd defendant prepared a reconstituted partnership deed dated 24.05.2002 on some of the blank papers on which signatures of some of the partners i.e. plaintiffs and 8^th defendant, were obtained, eliminating the signatures of other partners. The blank signed papers were utilised for due notification of alleged reconstitution before the Registrar of Firms, Form-V, and the signatures of each partners on blank papers were used as affidavits of plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6, 8 & 9 in suit O.S.No.263 of 2003 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, and also to file a memo in the said suit, filed by the plaintiffs and 8^th defendant against D2 and D7. In the said suit, a temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.218 of 2003 restraining the defendants 2 and 7 from alienating the plaint schedule property, and later the suit was disposed of. The reconstituted partnership deed dated 24.05.2002 was attested by Muddada Krishna Murthy Naidu and Rajapatruni Vijaya Ramakrishna, the close associates of the 2^nd defendant. Form-V was attested by Chartered Accountant Baratam Srirama Murthy, and he had not