K NARSIMHA REDDY Vs. G SUDHAKARA CHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S.No.421 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, are the petitioners herein. The respondent herein filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioners from interfering with the functioning of the factory in the suit schedule premises. It was alleged that the 2nd petitioner was taken as a dormant partner in the partnership firm, by name M/s. Kiran Mayee Engineering Work Limited. The respondent pleaded that the 2nd petitioner retired from partnership, by executing a deed of dissolution, dated 27-2-2003, and thereafter, she was paid certain amounts towards her share. The firm is said to have since been reconstituted, by taking one Mr. G. Satyam as partner.

(2.) The respondent filed I.A.No.924 of 2004 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C, seeking the relief of temporary injunction. The application was resisted by the petitioners. The trial Court allowed the LA. through its order, dated 25-10-2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed C.M.A. No.38 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The appeal was dismissed on 17-10-2005. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(3.) Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the cheques issued by the respondent towards the share of the 2nd petitioner were dishonoured, and despite the same, it granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent, on the sole basis that the 2nd petitioner signed upon a deed of dissolution, dated 27-2-2003, marked as Ex.P.1. She further submits that Ex.P.1 was sent for examination by Forensic Science Laboratory, and during the pendency of the C.M.A., a report was received to the effect that the signature of the 2nd petitioner was forged on the deed of dissolution. She contends that in view of these facts and circumstances, there does not exist any justification for grant or continuance of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent.