KBP 7613-08.sxw : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7613 OF 2008 Shri Seva Vyavasayik Ekta Sangh and ors. .. Petitioners V/s. R.D.Sethna Scholarship Fund .. Respondent ..... Ms.Ujwala Sawant i/b.Mr.S.V.Govilkar, for petitioners. Ms.Swati Deshpande i/b.M/s.FZB & Associates, for respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 5 th August, 2009. P.C. : 1] Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is present. The impugned order has been passed on an application made by the petitioners praying that the written statement filed by respondents defendants be discarded as the written statement was signed and verified by one Subhash Goyal claiming to be constituted attorney for the respondents-defendants and the alleged Power of Attorney in his favour does not authorise him to represent the trustees in a suit. 2] There is an affidavit filed by Farrokh Minoo Rustomji, the Chief Executive of the R.D.Sethna Scholarship Fund. In the affidavit he has stated that as a constituted attorney of the trustees of respondent, he verifies and affirms the contents of the written statement dated 20 th July, 2004 and the say dated 30 th September, 2004. In the said affidavit it is stated that a statement in paragraph 16 of the written statement has been incorporated through oversight. The order dated 7 th January, 2009 passed by this court records that the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is a curable defect. In fact by the said order, time was granted to the respondent to ratify the written statement. KBP 7613-08.sxw : 2 : 3] By the said affidavit which is referred to above, now the respondent has ratified what is stated in the written statement and reply signed by the said Goyal except one sentence in paragraph 16 of the written statement. The only objection of the petitioners to the written statement was that the person who has signed and verified written statement was not authorised by the respondent to do so. In view of what is stated in the aforesaid affidavit and the order dated 7 th January, 2009 passed by this court is not necessary to entertain the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )