have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments and the material placed on record. Discussion and Conclusion: - 33. Ex facie, learned counsel for the appellants could not satisfy the Court regarding the infirmity, if any, in the impugned judgment dated 27th March, 2014 in LPA No. 37 of 2002 and LPA No. 48 of 2002 and decree in O.S No. 121 of 1997 dated 26th October, 1998, whereby the firm-defendant No. 9 namely “M/s Shiva Reddy & 13brothers, B. Arjun Reddy & Co” was directed to be dissolved and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were directed to tender accounts of the firm. 34. Three Courts of the competent jurisdiction have recorded the concurrent findings on facts in decreeing the suit in favour of respondent No. 1- plaintiff. Hence, this is not a fit case warranting interference in such a concurrent finding of facts in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of