1 1028.10-cra IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1028 OF 2010 Satyapal Ramprakash Khanna. ... Petitioner. V/s. Roshan Textiles and others. ... Respondents. Owen Menezes i/b. P.P.Prabhu for the petitioner. R.A.Thorat for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 23rd August 2011. P.C. : By this revision application, the petitioner is raising the exception to the order passed by the trial Court disallowing the notice of motion presented at the instance of the petitioner/ original defendant No.3. During the pendency of the suit an objection was raised as regards the maintainability of the suit on the ground that plaintiff No.2 is represented by one Manish Malhotra whose name does not appear as a partner of the firm in the register maintained under the Partnership Act. It was contended that Mr.Manish Malhotra is not a partner of the firm- M/s.Sumesh Fabrics and, as such, in view of the provisions of section 69 of the Partnership Firm Act, the suit is not maintainable. The objection raised by the defendant was taken up for 2 1028.10-cra consideration by the trial Court and the notice of motion moved by the defendant came to be dismissed. The said order is a subject matter of this revision application. 2. When this revision application was taken up for consideration by this Court on 17th February 2011, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. original plaintiffs sought adjournment on the ground that the plaintiffs propose to tender application seeking amendment to the plaint. Considering the request made by respondent Nos.1 and 2/ original plaintiffs, the matter was adjourned. The plaintiffs, thereafter moved chamber summons seeking amendment to the plaint which has effect of deleting the name of plaintiff No.2 from the plaint, and the amendment as proposed was allowed by the trial Court. The challenge to the order passed in chamber summons, raised in Writ Petition No.5668/2011, has been turned down by this Court by passing separate order. In view of rejection of writ petition and confirmation of the order passed by the trial court in chamber summons permitting deletion of name of plaintiff No.2, this revision application needs no interference. It is devoid of any merits and stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE, J.)