1 cra-364-08 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 364 OF 2008 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 558 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 647 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION No. 2188 of 2007 Vincent Joseph Mendes ..Petitioner/Orig.Defendant No.1. vs. Karan Amarsen Goregandhi and (1) Ors ..Respondents. Mr V.S. Kapse , Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Ajit N.Shukla i/b M/s Pandya Gandhi & Co. for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM:A.R.JOSHI,J DATED : 25TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule. made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties for some time. 3. Both the said proceedings before this Court are filed by the 2 cra-364-08 original defendant No.1. Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order passed by the City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.2188 of 2007 in S.C. Suit No. 2536/2004 dated 13.3.2008. By the said order, notice of motion taken out by the defendant no.1 was rejected. The said notice of motion was taken out for the directions against the Union Bank of India, Peddar Road Branch, Mumbai to adjust the amount deposited by him towards dues towards Cash Credit Account bearing No. 50015 maintained with the said Bank and which was then being used for carrying on the business of petrol pump. Reportedly, according to the case of the parties, initially petrol pump business was of proprietary concern but subsequently the plaintiff (Respondent No.1 in the Appeal as well as Civil Revision Application before this Court) was introduced as one of the partners. It may be noted that the said order impugned in A.O., was passed in the suit filed by the plaintiff, then added partner, and the said suit was filed for restraining defendant No.1 (the present appellant) from obstructing the plaintiff to take part in the partnership business i.e., the suit and also for freezing bank account. Admittedly, the said bank account bearing No.50015 has been ordered to be freezed and said order has been confirmed in another A.O., before this Court and under this back ground the impugned order in present A.O., came to be 3 cra-364-08 passed and also mentioning that the Union Bank of India to whom directions were sought to be given was not the party to the said suit. 4. C.R.A, in the present matter is also filed by the original defendant no.1 in the same suit of the plaintiff. The order impugned in the present C.R.A., is dated 13.3.2008 in Notice of Motion No. 3226 of 2007 passed by the same Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay by which a notice of motion again was taken out by the present petitioner defendant no.1 was rejected. The prayers in the said notice of motion are that because of subsequent events occurred during the pendency of the suit of the plaintiff, entire suit has become infructuous. Main submission on behalf of defendant no.1 is that the business place of the partnership firm i.e. petrol pump was no longer in the possession of the firm in view of the certain directions of the Apex Court in the matter between one Tejpal Gokuldas Trust and H.P.C.L,and admittedly, the said premises of the said petrol pump situate at 15 N.S.Patkar Marg, Mumbai-400 007 is no longer the place of business of the firm for which the suit of the plaintiff is filed. At this juncture, it may also be mentioned that according to the plaintiff that was the place of the business and such averments were made in the plaint itself. In the present, C.R.A., shelter of the authority reported in the case of Shipping 4 cra-364-08 Corporation of India Ltd vs. Machado Brothers and Ors (2004) 11 S.C.C.168 has been taken on behalf of the petitioner- defendant no.1 on such prayer for dismissal of the suit for want of existence of place of partnership business. 5. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that as per the terms and conditions of the partnership business, the business was to be carried out from 15 N.S. Patkar Marg,Mumbai or at some other place as per the agreement between the partners. By taking shelter of such clause it is submitted that though the premises of the petrol pump is closed, still there is a scope for the partnership to continue its business at some other place. Of course, such course of action is available when such place of business is accepted by all the partners. In view of this course, the issue involved in both the proceedings i.e. A.O., and C.R.A., can be very well settled if both the suits are expeditiously heard and disposed of. In the mean time, this Court did not find it necessary to intervene in the impugned orders passed in both the notice of motions. By keeping the rival contentions of both the sides open before the trial Court, the directions are being given to the City Civil Court, Bombay to dispose of both pending suits expeditiously, one filed by the present plaintiff and another one filed by defendant no.1. It is brought to the 5 cra-364-08 notice of this Court by both the sides that both the said suits are presently dismissed for default and restoration applications are pending. Needless to mention that in spite of above order, the Trial Court shall deal with such applications for restoration according to law and in case of restoration of the suits, the above order shall be given effect and in that event both the suits shall be disposed of within a period of eight months from the date of restoration of those suits by the Trial Court. All the rival contentions are kept open. Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI,J)