:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2065 OF 2008 Chitra H. Jain ..Petitioner Vs. Deshraj J. Pakhre and anr. ..Respondents Mr. Pankaj S. Shah for petitioner. Mr. Paresh S. Madkaikar for respondent no.1. Ms. Sujata Mhadgut for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 31, 2008. Date : March 31, 2008. Date : March 31, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. 3. As the petition impugns an interlocutory order allowing Chamber Summons No. 1198 of 2007, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. :2: 4. The present petitioner is the original defendant no.1 in S.C. Suit No. 7641 of 1973 which was originally filed by the respondents, who are the bothers. Subsequently, plaintiff no.1 was transposed as defendant no.2 and there is no dispute that all the three are the partners of the partnership created by the Deed of Partnership dated 11/10/1971. During the course of the suit trial, the parties recorded evidence and the suit was posted for final arguments and at that stage Chamber Summons No. 1198 of 12007 was filed by the defendant no.2 for being transposed as plaintiff no.1 and the same Chamber Summons has been allowed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court and hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. The suit has been pending for the last about 35 years. The compromise between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 is placed on record and the court has not passed any order. The only apprehension expressed by the present respondent no.2 is that the compromise may result in the Court Receiver being discharged. Having regards to the orders passed from time to time :3: by the trial court, the said apprehension is certainly ill-founded. It will be in the interest of all the parties that the pending suit is decided within a fixed period and the rights of three partners are adjudicated upon. The compromise placed on record will have to be considered only in relation to such adjudicated share of the respective parties and in any case the Court Receiver will have to continue till the suit is finally decided. The order impugned is unsustainable and more so the Chamber Summons was taken out on the basis of the apprehensions as noted hereinabove. 6. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Consequently Chamber Summons No. 1198 of 2007 stands dismissed. S.C. Suit No. 7641 of 1973 be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31st August, 2008. The Court Receiver to continue to be in-charge till the suit is decided. Writ to go to the trail court. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)