1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been filed by the appellants challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2017 made in I.A. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2017 in Arb. O.P. No. 1 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruchirapalli.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The first appellant and the first respondent are the founder partners of the second respondent-Partnership Firm/Hospital, vide partnership deed dated 14.04.2008. As per the partnership deed, any partner either as new partner or in the place of an existing partner, cannot be admitted without the consent of the founder partners. After sometime, two partners had gone out of the partnership and therefore, a reconstitution deed came into existence on 28.02.2013. Subsequently, the second appellant was admitted into the partnership firm by way of reconstitution deed dated 01.04.2013. In the partnership firm, the first appellant and the first respondent are having 42.50% share each and the second appellant is having 15% share. As per the partnership deed, all the partners shall look after the day-to-day administration of the hospital jointly. The first appellant is a leading Nephrologist and the second appellant is a leading Urologist. When the matter stood thus, on 20.10.2016, the first respondent issued a notice to appellants making false allegations against them in order to expel them from the partnership firm under Section 33 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Further, the first respondent prevented the appellants from entering into the hospital premises. Thereafter, Arbitrators were appointed in this matter. Subsequently, the first respondent sent a notice indicating that the date of expulsion of the appellants as 20.10.2016 and 21.10.2016.

(ii) According to the appellants, a single partner cannot expel the majority of partners. The original documents are with the first respondent and the accounts of the hospital are not performed properly and the appellants are also prevented from verifying the accounts. Hence, the appellants filed I.A. No. 3 of 2017 for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the day to day management of the second respondent Firm by the appellants and further, they have filed I.A. No. 4 of 2017 for interim injunction against the banks, respondents 4 and 5 from allowing the respondents 1 to 3 from operating the bank accounts. Further, they have filed I.A. No. 5 of 2017 for appointment of receiver to take control of the management of the hospital and filed I.A. No. 6 of 2017 to grant leave to file a separate suit challenging the alleged expulsion of the appellants from the second respondent firm.

(iii) The first respondent filed a counter affidavit before the Court below as adopted by the respondents 2 and 3, stating that the appellants have been expelled from the partnership firm and they cannot claim themselves as partners. The partnership deed dated 01.04.2013 is not in existence and a reconstitution deed was registered on 20.10.2016. The first appellant had not invested huge money, but has spoiled the name of the hospital by his professional misconduct and misbehavior with staffs, nurses and attenders of the patients. The third respondent has been legally inducted as partner as per the reconstitution deed dated 20.10.2016. If no action was taken against the appellants, automatically the hospital will be de-listed from the Government Insurance Scheme. After expulsion, the appellants cannot claim access into the hospital as existing partners. The allegation of preventing the appellants from taking control of all the original documents is wrong. In fact, all the original documents were pledged with Karur Vysya Bank, Thillainagar, for the existing loans. The appellants' share on the profits and properties are protected and will be given as per the award by the Arbitration Tribunal. Therefore, the appellants have filed these application with an intention to spoil the hospital.

3. The Court bel