1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1153 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 3349 OF 1989 Sunil Chetan Thadani & Ors. .. Plaintiffs V/s Haresh Chetan Thadani & Anr. .. Defendants Ms. R.C. Nichani for defendant no.2, in support. Mr. Tushar Bhavsar i/b Ranjit & Co. for the plaintiffs. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 26th APRIL 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this chamber summons, the applicant who is defendant no.2 in the suit, prays that she be transposed as the plaintiff and the plaintiff be transposed as the defendant no.2. 3. One Mr. Chetan Mulchand Thadani and his son Sunil being plaintiff nos.1 and 2 respectively filed this suit against the defendant no.1 for dissolution of partnership, accounts and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff no.1 died. By an order dated 21st October 2 1994 passed in Chamber Summons No.252 of 1993, the applicant (defendant no.2), who is the daughter of the original plaintiff no.1, was ordered to be substituted in his place. Subsequently, by an order dated 9th January 1998 passed in Appeal No.1118 of 1997, she was made as the defendant nos. 2. The applicant, who has been joined as the defendant no.2 to the suit, has now made an application for being transposed as the plaintiff and transposing the original plaintiff no.2 as the co-defendant. 4. According to the applicant, the original plaintiff no.2 is not likely to pursue the suit and in fact he has entered into a settlement with the original defendant no.1. The consent terms are also filed on record between the original plaintiff no.2 and the original defendant no.1 on 18th October 2001. This substantiates the case of the applicant that the plaintiff no.2 is not likely to pursue the suit against the defendant no.1. In a suit for dissolution of partnership, each of the partners who is claiming a share, is so to say a plaintiff. The present applicant being an heir of one of the partners (viz. Original plaintiff no.1) is also entitled to pursue the suit. Hence, it would be appropriate to permit the applicant to be transposed as the plaintiff. Since the original plaintiff no.2 3 has already entered into a settlement, he would have to be transposed as a co-defendant. 5. In the circumstances, the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment shall be carried out within 4 weeks. 6. At the request of the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, the operation of this order is stayed for 2 weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)