1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2520 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 513 OF 2009 U.T.I. Infrastructure and Services Limited & Anr. ... Petitioners. V/s. Om Sai Enterprises & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. P.S. Dani i/b. Mr. Mahernosh Humranwala for the Petitioners. Mr. J.S. Kini i/b. Suresh Dubey for Respondent 1. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 15TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The order passed by the Trial Court is an interlocutory order but from a perusal thereof it appears to me that unless this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and corrects the erroneous exercise of 2 discretion, no prejudice will be caused to both sides. 3. After hearing Mr. Dani, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner – Original Defendant No.1 and Mr. Kini, learned Advocate appearing for the Original Plaintiff, it appears to me that a request made by the First Defendant and which does not appear to have been opposed by the Original Plaintiff should have been granted. Accordingly, it is directed that the Trial Court will frame the following issue as an additional Issue in L.C. Suit No.2377 of 2005 on its file :- “(1) Whether the Suit filed by the Plaintiff is maintainable for want of Registration under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ?” 4. Mr. Kini prays that the Plaintiff be permitted to lead further evidence inasmuch as the Court below has not recorded that the evidence of the Plaintiff is closed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is at liberty to examine further witness/s and the Trial Court shall allow the Defendants to cross-examine them. Needless to state that the Trial Court is 3 at liberty to fix a time frame for the Plaintiff to file affidavit evidence and for the Defendants to cross-examine the witness. After the Plaintiff closes the evidence, it would be open for the Defendants to lead evidence and at that time appropriate directions for filing of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and cross examination can be issued by the Trial Court. The order passed below Exhibit 19 on 12th February 2009 stands quashed and set aside and substituted as above. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 5. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil Application No. 513 of 2009 does not survive and it is disposed off, accordingly. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.