1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3585 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 3542 OF 2006 Shamina Amir Ali Mukadam & Anr. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Defendants. Mr. Ashwin Shankar for the Plaintiff. Ms. Kavita Anchan i/b. M.V. Kini & Co. for the Defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 7th APRIL 2010. P.C. :- The Plaintiffs herein have filed the Suit to recover monies from the Defendants on the basis of the Insurance Policy held by the Plaintiffs and the damage suffered by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have taken out this Notice of Motion for two prayers by prayers clause (a) preliminary issue as regard to the jurisdiction under Section 9A of C.P.C. be framed and it is the desire of the Defendants that the plaint should be rejected. By prayer clause (b) the Defendants want that this Suit should be stayed till disposal of Suit No.1417 of 2003 filed by the Defendants. 2 2. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. The arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the Defendants that the Suit is not maintainable for want of registration of the firm will not hold good in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Subramaniam V/s. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao reported in (2009) 5 SCC 608. By this Judgment, the provisions of sub-Section 2-A and 3(a) introduced by the Maharashtra Amendment Act 29 of 1984 to Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 have been held to be unconstitutional. This will mean that a firm which is not registered can institute a Suit for appropriate reliefs. In view of this discussion, no relief in terms of Prayer clause (a) can be granted. 3. So far as prayer (b) is concerned, it is noticed that the Defendants have filed Suit No.1417 of 2003 in this Court. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, it is positively stated that the issues raised in the said Suit being Suit No.1417 of 2003 filed by the Defendants are substantially the same as raised by the Plaintiffs in the present Suit. If this is the position admitted by the 3 Defendants, it would be proper that this Suit as well as Suit No.1417 of 2003 are tried together so that no conflicting judgments would be delivered because both the Suits pertain to the Insurance Policy which is referred to in the present Suit. In these circumstances, the Motion can be disposed off with no orders so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, with liberty to the Plaintiffs or Defendants to apply to the learned Chief Justice for tagging both the Suits together. 4. In view of the above, following order is passed to dispose off the Notice of Motion :- “Motion is dismissed so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned. No orders so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned. Liberty is granted to any of the party to the Suit to apply to the Learned Chief Justice for getting an order to try this Suit alongwith Suit No. 1417 of 2003. There shall be no order as to costs.“ (R.Y. GANOO, J.)