Sri.Sadaram Jnanesh, v. The Joint Collector,
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No. 35538 of 2012 Order:
The petitioner and the 9th respondent herein along with some others are the partners of a firm, which is running Sri Parameswari Picture Palace, in an extent of Ac.0-99 cents of land, situated in Ward No.29 of Visakhapatnam. The 9th respondent is the Managing Partner. When the 9th respondent did not pay the profits coming to the share of the petitioner's father, he filed OS No.104 of 2008 for dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition of accounts and the said suit is pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner also filed OS No.39 of 2006 before the same Court for partition of the same property and for allotment of 1/24th share to him and the same is also pending. The father of the petitioner died on 07.09.2012.
It is the allegation of the petitioner that taking advantage of the death of his father, the 9th respondent, who is a powerful man with political influence, wanted to split the said theatre into two theatres by changing the physical features of the property. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 06.11.2012 to the first respondent and submitted copies to all the official respondents by registered post. When they did not respond, the present writ petition is filed.
2. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 stating that an application was received from the management of Sri Parameswari Picture Palace, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam, proposing to convert their Non-AC theatre into AC theatre with seating capacity from 660 to 470. The procedure is prescribed under the AP Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1970. B-Form license in respect of the theatre is in the name of the 9th respondent who is continuing as
Managing Partner of the firm. Consequent to the application of the petitioner, the report of the Inspecting Officers was not received by the first respondent. The name of the picture palace as Sri Parameswari Picture Palace was already changed in the year 2005 as per the firm registration documents submitted by the management of the theatre, following the procedure as per AP Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1970.
3. It is evident from the above facts that a suit for partition of the property and a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts are pending before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The present action was initiated by the 9th respondent as Managing Partner for conversion of Non-AC theatre into AC theatre.
The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court for interdicting the said conversion on the ground of pendency of the suits. The first respondent admits the submission of application by the 9th respondent.
4. In the circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the objections to be raised by the petitioner, if any for the proposed action of the 9th respondent, in view of the disputes pending between them, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to alteration of physical features of the property, it is open to him to take appropriate reliefs from the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, before whom the suits are pending.
5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
6. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________________
A.
RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
Date: 16.02.2016 Nsr