SM 1 1.wp.8165.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8165 OF 2011 Shri. Shrinivas Iyenger ....Petitioner. Versus Symbiosis Society and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitish Chorbele with Amarjeet Prasad for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: The above writ petition takes exception to the order dated 25th July, 2011 passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, by which order, application Exhibit-102 for setting aside the affidavit of evidence filed by one Mr. G. R. Pathare on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, came to be rejected. The said application Exhibit-102 was filed by the petitioner on the ground that Shri. Pathare could not depose on behalf of the defendant no. 2 who has been arrayed in his individual capacity. The Trial Court, considering the fact that the defendant no. 2 Dr. Shantaram Balwant Mujumdar has been arrayed on behalf of the said society as its director and also considering the fact that Shri. Pathare has been authorised by the Symbiosis Society to depose on behalf of it, did not deem it fit to SM 2 1.wp.8165.11 grant the relief as prayed for. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, certain allegations have been made in the plaint qua the defendant no. 2 i.e., Dr. Shantaram Balwant Mujumdar; and therefore, Shri. Pathare could not depose on his behalf. For the said purpose, the petitioner herein sought to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Another v/s. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 584. In my view, in the fact of the present case, reliance placed by the petitioner on the said judgments is mis-founded. A perusal of the plaint, prima facie indicates that the acts attributed are jointly to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and it is also ex-facie clear that there are no personal allegations against the defendant no. 2. 3. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the present petition cannot be faulted with. No case for interdiction is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)