R. KALIYAPERUMAL Vs. P. APPARSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed challenging the correctness of the impugned decretal order dated 13.9.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.847 of 2019 & 44 of 2017 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, raising the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that when the suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008 was filed by Mr.K.Ramesh, the plaintiff therein (i) directing the defendants therein to furnish full accounts of receipts and expenditure of the firm for the period from 1995 to 2007; (ii) directing the payment of such amounts that may be due to the plaintiff; (iii) appointment of official Receiver and cost of the suit, another suit in O.S.No.45 of 2009 was filed by Mr.R.Perumal @ Kaliyaperumal and Mr.P.Apparsamy seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men from interfering with the conduct of the business, administration of the plaintiffs firm and from entering into the theatre premises in any manner. By a common judgment dated 1.10.2010, O.S.No.130 of 2008 was decreed as follows:-

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, A.S.No.16 of 2011 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.45 of 2009 by Mr.K.Ramesh and Mrs.R.Kavitha against M/s Balaji Theatre represented by its partners Mr.R.Perumal @ Kaliaperumal and P.Apparsamy. As the suit was filed for permanent injunction, the entire issue was with regard to the affairs of the partnership firm run by the father and son. Since the father has filed the suit restraining his son from interfering with the affairs of the firm, which has been decreed by the trial Court, learned counsel appearing for both parties submitted before this Court that the parties have filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.115 of 2011 and both the parties were willing to workout their remedy in the comprehensive suit, therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal suit. Accordingly, this Court, recording their statement, directed the parties to work out their remedy before the concerned Court where the comprehensive suit is pending, by order dated 27.3.2017 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2011.