1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICDTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3853 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2848 OF 2000 Mrs.Sangita Maruti Undre .. .. Plaintiff v/s. 1.M/s.Giriraj Associates & anr. .. Defendants W I T H NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3854 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2847 OF 2000 Mrs.Vandana Kaluram Avhale .. .. Plaintiff v/s. 1.M/s.Giriraj Associates & anr. .. Defendants Mr.Kaushik Kothari for Deft.No.1. Ms.K.C. Nichani i/by M.Z. Khapra for Deft.No.2 ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 19th March, 2010 P.C. : 1.Defendant No.2 has taken out the above two Notices of Motion, challenging the power given by the partner of Defendant No.1 to the Constituted Attorney shown in the 2 Power of Attorney to prosecute the Suit as well as to appoint his Advocate. 2.This is because Defendant No.2 suspects that the person who granted the Power of Attorney and who was a partner of the Firm of Defendant No.2, may be dead. The Power of Attorney may, therefore, be terminated. Hence the Advocate of Defendant No.2 has corresponded with Defendant No.2 in that behalf. 3.Ms.Nichani contends that there were five partners of Defendant No.1, out of which two partners remain. The partners gave separate and distinct powers to various persons without the consent of other partners and hence the power granted under that Power of Attorney is not valid. Every partner acts on behalf of the Firm. There is an implied authority upon each of the partners under Section 19 of the Partnership Act to do so. The Power of Attorney granted by one of the partners is not, therefore, per se invalid. If however the partner who granted the Power of Attorney has expired, a separate Power of Attorney would have to be executed thereafter to further prosecute the Suit. The challenge in both these Notices of Motion is premature. Such a challenge can be made only if and when the Constituted Attorney seeks to give evidence on behalf of the Firm at which time in his cross-examination all the questions 3 relating to the suspicion of the Plaintiff can be put. Both the Notices of Motion are misconceived. 4.Consequently, both the Notices of Motion are dismissed with costs fixed at Rs.500/- condition precedent in each of them. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)