1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9775 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9775 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Patil holding for Advocate Mr. Pokharkar for the Petitioner and Advocate Mr. Sangit for Respondent/ plaintiff. 2. The Respondent/ plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.119 of 2009 against a proprietary concern by name Vikas Krishi Seva Kendra and joined one Vikas S/o Hirachand Kotecha as its proprietor. Vikas filed his written statement and denied any business relation with plaintiff. Lateron petitioner/ plaintiff filed application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.Code and sought leave to substitute Vikas S/o Hirachand Kotecha by Hirachand S/o Kanhayyalal Kotecha with contention that Hirachand was the true proprietor. Trial Court has accepted that contention. 3. Advocate for the Petition contends that 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9775 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the Respondent ought to have filed a fresh suit because it is new cause of action. 4, According to Advocate Mr. Sangit it is. not a new cause of action and petition filed before this Court is by Vikas only. He points out that Respondent/ plaintiff has already disclosed that he has no case or cause against Vikas. 5. It is apparent that Vikas has been discharged from the suit by the respondent/ plaintiff. As such petition filed by him is not maintainable. Accordingly, same is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:30/03/2011. ans/9775