IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.447 of 2020 DATE: 20.02.2026 Between Sri Narayan Lal Ganeriwal …Petitioner/Defendant AND Smt. Goli Sowbhagya Laxmi and 2 others …Respondents/Plaintiffs

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 05.09.2019 in I.A.No.142 of 2015 in O.S.No.138 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Sri K. Ratnam, learned counsel representing Sri K. Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri G. Maloji Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff in OS No.488 of 2001 is that one Sri Goli Ramesh and the plaintiff entered into a partnership deed and started partnership business in the name of M/s. Stickwell Industries on 10.07.1974, on the date of which the partnership deed reduced into writing and the said partnership was also got registered in the firms.

5. On 25.10.1997, during the pendency of the partnership, one Sri Goli Ramesh passed away on 25.10.1997 leaving the defendants as his legal heirs. Defendant No.1 is the wife and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are sons of the said deceased Goli Ramesh. The claim of the defendants is that as per Clause 11 of the Partnership agreement, in the event of the death of any one of the partners, partnership shall not dissolve and it shall continue by taking the legal representatives of the deceased partner as partners with the same share as the deceased partner had. It is only if the legal representatives of the deceased partner do not choose to continue in the firm, the other consequences are followed as stated in Clause 11 of the partnership agreement.

6. After the death of Sri Goli Ramesh, the defendants approached the plaintiff for continuation of partnership. The plaintiff without continuing the partnership filed O.S.No.488 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The plaintiff claimed that after the death of Goli Ramesh, the other partner of the firm, entitled to become the sole proprietor of the firm and the said suit was decreed on

31.12.2004.

7. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.488 of 2001 dated 31.12.2004, the defendants in said suit preferred an appeal vide AS No.29 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, which was allowed by setting aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.488 of 2001 on 10.09.2007.

8. The defendant wantedly suppressed the partnership deed and held that the defendants/plaintiffs herein are deemed to have been continuing in the partnership, as the plaintiffs and they are stepped into the shoes of the said partnership, the defendants are bound to render true and correct accounts of the partnership and the defendant did not choose to continue the partnership. As such, a legal notice was issued on 28.06.2013 seeking rendition of account of the partnership firm. Though the same was received, no reply was issued. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit i.e., O.S.No.138 of 2014 seeking the following relief:

a) The plaintiffs, therefore, pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and preliminary decree for rendition of accounts, directing the defendant to render a true and correct account of the partnership:

create charge on the share of the defendant.

b) To award costs of the suit.

c) To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem as