1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1777 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2801 OF 2005 The Board of Trustees of the port of Mumbai .... Plaintiff V/s. Vinsons & Ors. .... Defendants ..... Ms. Varsha Jain a/w. Ms.Priti Shah i/by Motiwala & Co. for the plaintiff. Mr.Pankaj Sutar i/by Khaintan & Jaykar for defendant nos.1 to 4. ..... CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Chamber Summons is taken out by defendant no.1 for permission to delete the names of defendant nos. 2, 3 & 4 as a party defendants in the suit. Defendant no.1 is the Partnership Firm of which defendant no.2 was a partner. However, defendant no.2 has expired long back in the year 1996. So far 2 as defendant no. 3 is concerned, there is no dispute that he is not the partner of defendant no.1. In that view of the matter, names of defendant nos. 2 & 3 are permitted to be deleted. 3. So far as defendant no.4 is concerned, he was partner of defendant no.1, however, retired long back on 1st August 1996. When the Memorandum of Settlement was executed on 25th January 1994 between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, defendant no.4 was the partner of defendant no.1. Vide Section 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the liability of the retired partner continues after retirement and therefore, the name of defendant no.4 cannot be deleted. 4. The Chamber Summons is accordingly partly allowed. The names of defendant nos. 2 & 3 are permitted to be deleted. The plaintiff shall carry out consequential amendments within a period of two weeks from today. (R. V. MORE, J.) 3