*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.404/2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION 2783/2009 Murlidhar Narayan Waichal. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Kamini Haribhau Kakade and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Nitin Mulye, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.Prachi Tatke, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1 to 7. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 16th November, 2009. PC:- 1 The original Plaintiff by name Shankarrao Narayan Waichal instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. The partnership firm is not registered. However, the said suit was maintainable by virtue of an exception carved out by Section 69(3)(a) of the Partnership Act which is a Central Law. The Petitioner is the original Defendant in the said suit. The said suit came to be decreed on 27.09.2001. The Petitioner/ Defendant in an appeal preferred by him against the decree, moved an application for amendment of the Written Statement with a view to raise an objection to the maintainability of the suit and its *2* prosecution by the legal heirs on the ground that sub-section (2-A) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act introduced by the Maharashtra Amendment takes away the right vested in the Plaintiff by virtue of Section 69(3)(a) of the Central Act. 2 My attention is invited to the Supreme Court’s judgment in case of V.Subramaniam v/s Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao (2009(5) SCC 608), wherein, the Apex Court struck down the Maharashtra Amendment introducing sub-section (2-A) of Section 69 being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3 In view of quashing of sub-section (2-A) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, the proposed objection would not survive. In the result, there being no merit in the petition, same stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)