1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Chamber Summons No.1166 of 2006 In Suit No.2198 of 1996 Hemavand Behram Nadarain. .. .. Plaintiff v/s. Adi Khodamurad Dana & ors. .. .. Defendants and Rohinton Khodamurad Irani & anr. .. Respondents Mr.M.L. Palon with Mrs.J.P. Thakkar for Plaintiff. Mr.G.C. Singh for Res.No.1. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 4th September, 2008 P.C. : 1.This matter has remained pending with the same dispute between the parties for the last 12 years. 2.The parties to the Suit are partners. They, along with Respondent No.1 made offers to carry on business. An offer was made earlier by Respondent No.1 herein to run the suit business upon a royalty of Rs.28,000/- per month. The Plaintiff had bid for Rs.29,000/-, to be paid by way of royalty for running the suit business. Hence, the Plaintiff was allowed to run the suit business. 2 3.Since the parties to the Suit are partners, they know the state of the suit premises. Upon such knowledge the Plaintiff bid and was allowed to carry on the business. The Plaintiff made certain additions, alterations and renovations in the suit premises as was required to enable him to carry on business smoothly and effectively. 4.The Plaintiff now desires a reduction of royalty. Defendant No.1 is the partner who backs the Plaintiff. He has filed an Affidavit accepting the Plaintiff' s Application. 5.The Court has to see the interest of all the parties to the Suit and not only two of the partners who may be in collusion. 6.The reduction that is claimed by the Plaintiff is from Rs.29,000/- to Rs.12,500/-. That reduction appears to be most unreasonable. Since other Defendants and Respondent No.1 have not filed any Affidavit-in-reply despite service, the royalty amount payable by the Plaintiff is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. 7.The Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] 3