: 1 : 6714-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6714 OF 2011 Shantilal Gulabchand Muttha .. Petitioner v/s. Avinash Wamanrao Dahanukar & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. R.D. Soni i/b Ram & Co. for the petitioner Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for respondent no.1 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Bandiwadekar waives service on behalf of respondent no.1. By consent, petition is taken for hearing. : 2 : 6714-11-wp=.sxw 3. The respondent no.1 herein filed Special Civil Suit No.1465 of 1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune against the present petitioner Shri Shantilal G. Muttha and two others persons namely Mr. Rikhablal P. Bhandari & Mr. Raichand B. Kunkulol, who were shown as defendant no.2 and 3 respectively. The aforesaid Suit No.1465 of 1997 came to be dismissed as against Mr. Rikhablal and Mr. Raichand and as of today, the suit is alive so far as the present petitioner is concerned. The respondent no.1 herein filed an application vide Exh.152 for amendment of the plaint after the suit came to be dismissed against Mr. Rikhablal and Mr. Raichand and wanted to amend the plaint so as to show in the amended plaint that Mr. Rikhablal and Mr. Raichand were the partners of M/s. Muttha Associates. By the said amendment application, he also wanted to show that present petitioner is a partner of M/s. Muttha & Associates. The learned 3rd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by order dated 10th February, 2011 granted the said amendment application, against which this petition is filed. 4. In the impugned order dated 10th February, 2011 all the three : 3 : 6714-11-wp=.sxw defendants were permitted to be shown as partners of M/s. Muttha Associates. It is noted that according to the present respondent no.1, M/s. Muttha Associates was a partnership firm and the present petitioner and Mr. Rikhablal and Mr. Raichand were also the partners of the said firm. It is in the light of that assertion, the amendment was sought. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Bandiwadekar appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submitted that respondent no.1 wants to prosecute the suit against the partnership firm M/s. Muttha Associates. 6. I have perused the impugned order dated 10th February, 2011. Firstly, so far as the styling Mr. Rikhablal and Mr. Raichand as partners of M/s. Muttha Associates is of no use because the suit is dismissed against those persons in the year 2006. To that extent, grant of amendment is incorrect. 7. So far as the grant of amendment as regards the present petitioner is concerned, the suit has not been filed against M/s. Muttha Associates. Assuming for a moment that the decree is passed against the present petitioner, surely, respondent no.1 would not been able to execute the said : 4 : 6714-11-wp=.sxw decree against M/s. Muttha Associates as the said firm is not the party defendant. 8. In my view, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 10th February, 2011 passed by learned 3rd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is required to be set aside. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Rule is made absolute. (ii) The impugned order dated 10th February, 2011 passed by learned 3rd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is set aside. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)