-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2255 OF 2010 M/s. Maneklal & Co., ..Petitioner. Versus Mr. Devang R. Sanghvi & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R. M. Sanghavi partner of petitioner firm­ party in person. Mr. Devang Sanghavi respondent no.1 party in person. Ms. Veena Gawade, for respondent no.2. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : April 16, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sanghavi, partner of petitioner firm in­person and respondent no.1 in­person and learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. Respondent no.1 has filed Marriage Petition No. A­1558 of 2004 under the Special Marriage Act against respondent no.2 – wife on various grounds. Respondent no.2 in the said petition filed an application for grant of maintenance, return of stridhan and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act. The marriage petition and the aforesaid application are pending for hearing and final disposal. The partner of petitioner firm was examined on behalf of respondent no.1 and cross examined by respondent no.2 – wife. 3. Respondent No.2 in aforesaid marriage petition filed an application at Exhibit ­138 for issuance of witness summons to the Manager, Indian -: 2 :- Overseas Bank, Iscon Branch, Juhu to get each and every document pertaining to the Maneklal & Company bearing Bank Account No. 879 starting with the account opening from, names of the account holders, nominees, authorised signatories along with all the bank statements from June 2003 till date revealing all the transactions etc. The learned Judge of the Family Court by his order dated 9th February 2010 found that the documents are necessary, hence allowed the application. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application at Exhibit 164 under Order­I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as Intervening Application, taking exception to the above order granting respondent no.2’s application to issue witness summons to the Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Juhu. This application was rejected by the Family Court by its order dated 4th March 2010 after hearing respective parties. The petitioners is challenging both the orders mentioned above, namely, Order dated 9th February 2010 below Exhibit 138 and Order dated 4th March 2010 below Exhibit 164 by filing present petition. 5. The Petitioner submitted that respondent no.2 was partner of the petitioner firm prior to 2004. He further submitted that while deciding respondent no.2’s application for grant of maintenance, the fact whether respondent no.1 is a partner of petitioner firm or not is not a relevant fact. Respondent no.2, on the contrary, supported the impugned orders. 6. Though the petitioner claims that respondent no.1 resigned from the partnership firm with effect from 31st May 2004, information to that effect -: 3 :- was given to the Registrar of Firms only on 25th April 2006, i.e., approximately after two years. The petitioner and respondent no.1 on oath have made various contradictory statements regarding respondent no.1’s involvement in Maneklal & Co.,. Initially the petitioner as well as respondent no.1 denied that respondent no.1 was ever partner in the said firm, however, later on accepted the said fact and stated that respondent no.1 has resigned from the partnership firm. In these circumstances, learned Judge of the Family Court came to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner's version that respondent no.1 has retired from the partnership firm is doubtful. I find no error in the said order so as to enable me to exercise my powers and interfere with the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, I find that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, if the witness summons is issued to their banker. In the light of these facts and circumstances, Petition is dismissed. 7. At this stage, Mr. Sanghavi, petitioner, party­in­person requested to stay the effect, implementation and operation of impugned order for the period of two weeks so as to enable him to approach the higher Court. This request is not seriously opposed by the other side. In the circumstances, the request of the petitioner is granted and impugned order is stayed for the period of three weeks from today. (R.V. MORE, J.)