1. The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in Suit and first respondent in CMA, the first respondent is the third party to the suit and appellant in CMA and the second respondent is second defendant in the suit and second respondent in CMA. Respondents 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of second defendant and respondents 4 to 6 in CMA.

2. The petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.207 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court, Pondicherry. He filed the said suit for passing of preliminary decree dissolving the Evergreen Tube Well Services, a Partnership Firm for taking accounts from 01.07.1993 till the date of the suit and to value the assets of the firm mentioned in the plaint and other assets whatever it is found and directing each partner of the firm to pay into court any balance due from him to partnership firm and other relief, appoint a receiver to take charge of management of firm with all its assets and liabilities till the winding up of firm is completed and for permanent injunction. After contest, the said suit was dismissed. The petitioner filed A.S.No.260 of 1987 on the file of this Court. The said Appeal was allowed by this Court by judgment and decree dated 26.04.1999 and passed a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership firm and for accounts. The LPA No.105 of 1999 filed by the second respondent and A.M.S.Issac, second defendant in the suit was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.12.2002. SLP filed by them also was dismissed.

3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.738 of 1999 for appointment of receiver. Trial Court, by order dated 03.03.2003 allowed the said application but did not appoint any receiver. The petitioner filed a memo to name the receiver which was allowed by the Trial Court on 07.09.2004. Meanwhile, the second respondent herein and second defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.732 of 1999 seeking amendment of the plaint. The said I.A. was dismissed. Against the said order, second respondent herein and second defendant filed CRP No.732 of 2005 challenging the order passed against them in I.A.No.732 of 1999. This Court, by order dated 17.08.2005 directed the Trial Court to name the receiver and also appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1446 of 2005 to appoint him as a party receiver as there is no panel of receiver in the Court. The said application was dismissed on 23.11.2005 on the ground that no party receiver can be appointed. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed CRP No.3656 of 2007. This Court, by order dated 27.11.2007 allowed the CRP and restored I.A.No.1446 of 2005 and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the I.A. on merits. The Trial Court, by order dated 18.10.2010 allowed I.A.No.1446 of 2005 appointing the petitioner as party receiver for the assets of the partnership firm and also directed the petitioner to take charge of management of first respondent herein.

4. The second respondent and second defendant in the suit filed CMA No.7 of 2010 challenging the said order. After contest, the said CMA was dismissed. The first respondent filed I.A.No.138 of 2011 to set aside the orders dated 18.10.2010 in I.A.No.1446 of 2005 appointing petitioner as party receiver to take charge of management of first respondent. The said I.A.No.138 of 2011 was dismissed on 16.03.2011. The first respondent filed CMA No.2 of 2011 challenging the order dated 16.03.2011 made in I.A.No.1386 of 2011. By judgment dated 08.04.2013, CMA No.2 of 2011 was allowed setting aside the order dismissing I.A.No.138 of 2011.

5. Against the said order made in CMA No.2 of 2011, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that –

(a) the application and the appeal filed by the first respondent who is a third party to the suit is not maintainable.

(b) All the assets of the partnership firm are with first respondent company and this fact has been admitted by the second respondent in the written statement filed by h