This petition arises out of the order dated 18th April, 2012 passed by the trial Court on the application preferred by the petitioners for deletion of respondents No.3, 4 and 5 from the suit on the ground of misjoinder of parties as also misjoinder of causes of action.

2. The petitioners are defendants no. 1 to 4 to Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 2012 filed by respondent no. 1 (the plaintiff). Respondent no. 2 is original defendant no. 5 and respondents no. 3 to 5 are original defendants no. 6 to 8. For convenience, the parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to by their original nomenclature.

3. The partnership Firm of M/s R.S. Shetye & Brothers (the "Firm" for short) was constituted in the year 1970 with members of Shetye family as it's partners. With passage of time, there have been changes in the constitution of the Firm. Until some time prior to filing of the suit, the partners of the Firm, by virtue of the partnership agreement dated 22nd January, 2004, were the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 4. Their respective shares in the Firm, were: the plaintiff - 34%, defendant no. 1-33% and defendants no. 2 to 4 together 33%. The business of the Firm is of mining. It holds mining lease in the name of "Deulem Mines". Defendant no. 7 has been appointed by the Firm as Raising Contractor for the purpose of extraction of ore. Defendant no.8 is the subcontractor of defendant no.7 and defendant no.6 is the exclusive purchaser of the ore from the said Mine under an agreement executed for the purpose.

4. By the letter of authority dated 2nd November, 2011, all the partners had authorised defendant no.5 to represent the Firm in all respects and communicate and correspond on behalf of the Firm. Pursuant to the authority, defendant no.5 by his letter dated 21st January, 2011, had called upon defendant no. 7 to suspend all the mining activities in the Firm's Mine with immediate effect in view of expiry of environmental clearances accorded to the Firm's mining lease. This step was taken by the Firm because of a letter received by it from Directorate of Mines and Geology and a notice received from the Goa State Pollution Control Board. The letter made reference to the judgment of this Court (Goa Bench) in Public Interest Litigation No. 6 of 2011 and appointment of Commission of enquiry headed by Justice M.B. Shah, retired Supreme Court Judge, to caution defendant no. 7 that apart from the notices received, there was continued investigation in progress, into violation of conditions of mining lease and environmental laws. Three days thereafter i.e. on 24th November, 2011, defendant no. 5 addressed another letter to defendant no. 7 alleging that continued grave illegalities in the operation of Mine by defendant no. 7 was very likely to affect the Firm's leasehold rights in respect of the Mine. In addition to the illegalities in operating the Mine, defendant no. 7 was in breach of contractual compliances. The lapses had been pointed out in the past and discussed in vain. Consequently, the Firm had lost confidence, faith and trust in the functioning of defendant no. 7. Therefore, the appointment as Raising Contractor of defendant no. 7 was withdrawn and the agreement dated 19th July, 2019 terminated forthwith.

5. On the very next day, the plaintiff issued a declaration purportedly on behalf of the Firm that the letter of authority dated 2nd November, 2011 in favour of defendant no. 5 was withdrawn in view of the notice of termination of agreement sent by him to defendant no. 7 She further declared that the agreement with defendants no. 6 to 8 is subsisting and that both the contractors are entitled to raise the iron ore in terms of the agreement. It appears that the plaintiff had thereafter by her letter dated 15th December, 2011 informed the Regional Controller of Mines and Deputy Superintendent of Police that the acts done by defendant no. 5, pursuant to the authority given to him by the partners of the Firm was unauthorised and contrary to th