1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4938 OF 2008 Santosh Sitaram Bhople ...Petitioner vs. Sitaram Bhairu Bhople (since deceased) by his L.Rs ...Respondents Mr.A.B.Borkar for the petitioner Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Considering the narrow controversy involved in this petition, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2 The original respondent in the petition is the original plaintiff. The petitioner is the original defendant. The petitioner is the son of the original plaintiff. The original respondent died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent states that one of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent has not been brought on record. 3 The original respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for accounts of the dissolved partnership firm 2 and various other reliefs. The case made out by the original respondent was that he had obtained a liquor licence in his name and was running a liquor shop. He stated that he entered into partnership with the petitioner on 1st October 2004. According to the case of the original respondent, by issuing a notice, the partnership was dissolved. An application for interim relief was made by the said respondent in the suit. The prayer made in the said application was that the petitioner be directed to hand over the liquor licence to the original respondent for renewal thereof and the petitioner be enjoined to keep the liquor shop closed as the partnership has been dissolved. The said application was contested by the petitioner. 4 By a Judgment and order dated 1st April 2008, the trial court allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to immediately hand over the original liquor licence to the original respondent-plaintiff for the purpose of renewal. The trial court directed the petitioner to stop running the liquor shop and allowed the original respondent to run the said shop. The said order has been confirmed in appeal. The said orders are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 5 The orders are challenged on various grounds including the ground of the bar created by section 69 of 3 the Indian Partnership Act,1932. It must be noted here that the liquor licence is in the name of the deceased respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, as of today, neither the petitioner nor the respondents can run the liquor shop. Considering the fact that the original respondent was the father of the petitioner and that the liquor licence was all along standing in the name of the original respondent-plaintiff, interim order permitting the original respondent to run the liquor shop was passed. The situation has undergone a drastic change as a result of death of the original respondent-plaintiff. Now none of the parties are in a position to run the shop as the licence stands in the name of deceased plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions of the petitioner stated that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, he is ready and willing to deposit the original liquor licence with the trial court within a period of four weeks from today. 5a The suit for accounts and other reliefs is pending. As a result of the subsequent events, now, none of the parties is in a position to conduct the business of selling liquor. The petitioner has offered to deposit the original licence with the trial court. It is obvious that during the pendency of the suit, both the parties will be entitled to apply to the trial court for appropriate interim arrangement regarding the conduct of 4 the business of the partnership. In view of the death of the original respondent and in view of the fact that the liquor licence stands in the name of the deceased respondent, now, the very purpose of passing the interim order which is impugned in this petition has been frusteted. Now, none of the parties can carry on the business of partnership unless an appropriate order is passed by the trial court as regards renewal of the licence and as regards the conduct of business during the pendency of the suit. Hence, by setting aside the impugned orders, the parties will have to be given a liberty to apply to the trial court for appropriate interim relief. 6 Hence, I pass the following order. i) The statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding deposit/surrender of the liquor licence is accepted. In view of the said statement, the petitioner is directed to surrender the liquor licence to the trial court within a period of four weeks from today. ii) The impugned Judgments and orders are quashed and set aside. Application at Exh.5 stands disposed of. It will be open for both the petitioner as well as the respondents to apply to the trial court for grant of appropriate interim relief and for issuing necessary 5 direction as regards the interim arrangement to be made in respect of the conduct of the business of the partnership. iii) If the parties make such applications, the trial court shall decide the same on its own merits. The application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. iv) It is made clear that all contentions including the contention raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit are kept open. v) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms. JUDGE