:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2923 OF 2007 Jagjitsingh Kartarsingh Gandhi ...Petitioner Versus Harmindersingh Kartarsingh Gandhi ....Respondent Mr.Pratap Patil, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Prakash Punjabi i/by. M/s. Prakash Punjabi & Co. Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 23rd January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner is the original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 768 of 2004. He filed an application (Exhibit-30) wherein he prayed that the Special Civil :2: :2: :2: Suit be dismissed as the court would not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. That application was taken up and an issue under Section 9A of the CPC was framed. Thereafter by the impugned order, the court below held that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner-original defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner-defendant had filed an Application with a plea to frame the issue of jurisdiction and try the same as a preliminary issue, because according to him the respondent-plaintiff is trying to enforce the rights in respect of a dissolved Firm on the basis that he is a partner thereof. The suit is clearly barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 3. The respondent plaintiff denied this contention and urged that if the plaint allegations are taken as they are and they are construed as a whole, then, the case is covered by Section 68 of sub-Secton (3)(a) of the Indian Partnership Act and therefore is maintainable. :3: :3: :3: 4. After the matter was heard for some time, both sides agree that all aspects pertaining to the issue of jurisdiction have not been gone into and the Application which has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant should be reheard and decided afresh. 5. Accordingly, by consent of both sides, the order under challenge dated 27.2.2007 is quashed and set aside. The application (Exhibit-30) filed by the petitioner-defendant shall be reheard and decided afresh in accordance with law. The Trial Court to decide the same without being influenced by the observations in its earlier order which has been quashed and set aside by this court. However, it is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion, insofar as, the rival contentions are concerned and each one of them are kept open. The Trial Court is directed to decide the said application as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. No costs. sd/- :4: :4: :4: ********