CHATHAN MADHAVI Vs. DARSANA VASTHRALAYAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE mother and her children are at loggerheads. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Original Petition are as follows:

(2.) THE allegation in the plaint is that on 19.5.2014, quite contrary to the state of affairs that was available till then, the first defendant, with the aid of the second defendant trespassed into the premises and forcefully closed it down bringing to a halt the business that was being carried on in the premises. That made the firm to move the court for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) DEFENDANTS entered appearance and they apart from resisting the interlocutory application, have also filed an interlocutory application as I.A.744 of 2014 seeking interim relief in their favour. Both the applications were tried together by the trial court and I.A.695 of 2014 was treated as the leading petition. For the purpose of I.A.695 of 2014 Exts. A1 to A72 were marked from the side of the petitioner and Exts. B1 to B16 were marked from the side of the contesting respondents. The trial court found that the plaintiff was carrying on business till 19.5.2014, but the plaintiff cannot seek to exclude the first defendant from participating in the business of the firm for the simple reason that she too is a partner of the firm. After discussing the tussle for getting the license in separate names, the court concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief and dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff. As far as the application filed by the respondents was concerned, the court below did not find favour with the defendants and dismissed that petition also.