P VENKATESWARLU Vs. C LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Principal District Munsiff, Srikalahasti in I.A. Nos. 461 of 1993 and 408 of 1994 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, staying the proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 70 of 1993 filed by the petitioner herein for rendition of accounts which were confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti in C.M.A. Nos. 10 of 1996 and 11 of 1996, the petitioner (Plaintiff in the suit) filed these two revision petitions. As the issue raised in both the revision petitions is common, they can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this case are that the petitioner's Grand-father by name Pasupuleti Sreenivasulu Chetty along with the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents formed into an unregistered Partnership firm in the year 1927 and was running the Rice Mill in the name and style of Sri Lakshminarayana Rice Mill, Kothapeta Srikalahasti. As and when the original partners died, their legal representatives are being admitted to partnership. After the death of Srinivasulu Chetty, his sons Rama Murthy, and Venkata Ratnam were admitted to partnership. After the death of Ram Murthy, his son Venkateshwarlu i.e. the present petitioner seems to have been admitted to partnership firm. I need not give much importance to the dates on which the legal representatives of the original partners are admitted to Partnership from time to time. But the fact remains that they got the terms of the partnership reduced into writing on 15-2-1982, wherein their shares were also mentioned. It is also not in dispute that the licence of the Rice Mill used to be in the name of Srinivasulu Chetty and after his death in the name of Rama Murthy. It seems, disputes have started when the respondents herein purchased the share of one Venkatadri Naidu, without the consent, knowledge and approval of the other partners. For the first time, the respondents filed O.S. No.336 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Srikalahasti against two partners viz. K. Ramakrishnama Naidu and K. Munu Swamy and obtained injunction against them from interfering in the affairs of the partnership firm. At this stage, Rama Murthy in whose name the licence was being issued by the Licensing Authority and after his death the petitioner refused to obtain licence for carrying on the business of the Rice Mill. In those circumstances, the respondents again filed O.S. No.42 of 1992 seeking mandatory injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the affairs of the firm. In that suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 347 of 1992 stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Clause 11 of the Partnership Agreement providing for arbitration in case of disputes between the parties. But the District Munsif dismissed the said application and on what grounds the said application was dismissed is not known, as the copy of the said order is not placed before this Court. Be that as it may, after dismissal of his application, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 4-6-1993 expressing his intention to dissolve the firm and called upon the respondents to render true and proper accounts from 1-4-1998 and to pay his share both in profits and in partnership assets within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice. He also made it clear in the said notice that if the respondents failed to comply with his request, he will be constrained to approach the Civil Court. In this notice, the petitioner also clearly stated that the respondents have already approached the Civil Court ignoring the arbitration clause provided in the partnership agreement and as they themselves had given a go-bye to the Arbitration Clause, the question of seeking intervention of an Arbitrator to settle the disputes may not arise.

(3.) Both the respondents sent replies individually on 19-6-1993 and 2-6-1993. They have not very much disputed the existence of the partnership, except disputing the extent of shares and stating that the petitioner is being paid profits out of the partnership business. But in the legal notice they categorically stated that as the application filed by the petitioner i.e. I.A. No. 347 of 1992 seeking arbitration was dismissed, he cannot invoke the arbitration clause once again. It is useful to extract the notice issued on behalf of Cherukumudu Laximi Narasimha Rao as under: