- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. jmi SUIT NO.2343 OF 1990. Fakhruddin Mohammadali Cutchhi & Ors. ..Plaintiffs. vs. Lalit C. Gandhi & Ors. ..Defendants. WITH SUIT NO.3228 OF 1991. M/s.Lok Developers. ..Plaintiffs. vs. Fakhruddin Mohammadali Cutchhi & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr.E.K.Sashidharan, i/b. P.Mehta & Mithi & Co., for Plaintiffs in Suit No.3228/1991. None for the Defendants in Suit No.3228/1991 & None for the Plaintiffs in Suit No.2343/1990. None for the Defendants in Suit No.2343/1990. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 24TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 24TH FEBRUARY,2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . As recorded in order passed by this Court dated 16h February 2009, the learned Advocate Mr.V.P.Amin had stated that they have already obtained a discharge in suit no.2343/1990 as Advocates for the plaintiffs and in suit no.3228/1991, as Advocates for the defendants. It is further recorded that after obtaining discharge, M/s.B.Amin & Company have by their letter dated 3rd February 2009 informed the plaintiffs in suit no.2343/1990 who are defendants in suit no.3228/1991 that they have obtained discharge and that the suit will come up before this Court on 11th February 2009 and they - 2 - should remain present if they so desire. The said letters were taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 2. It was further submitted by Advocate Mr.V.P.Amin that they could effect service of their letter/notice only on Mrs. Fatimabai Taherbhai Lokhandwala who is plaintiff no.4 in suit no.2343/1990 and defendant no.4 in suit no.3228/1991 since other plaintiffs/defendants are no longer residing at their respective addresses set out in the cause title of the suit. 3. In view thereof, suit no.2343/1990 was adjourned to 24th February 2009, i.e. today, for dismissal and suit no.3228/1991 for hearing and final disposal. 4. Even today, though the suits were called out in the morning as well as afternoon session, none appears for the plaintiffs in suit no.2343/1990 and for the defendants in suit no.3228/1991. 5. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiffs in suit no.2343/1990 and the defendants in suit no.3228/1991 are not interested in proceeding with their case/defence in the said two suits. - 3 - 6. Suit no.2343/1990 is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. In suit no.3228/1991, the following issues are settled in terms of draft issues tendered in Court by the plaintiffs :- (1) Whether the plaintiffs proves that the plaintiffs-Firm is registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ? (2) Whether the defendants prove that the suit ought to be dismissed as leave to sue under clause 12 of the Letters Patent was not obtained by the plaintiffs before filing the suit as asserted in paragraph no.1 of the respective written statements ? (3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable as the change in the partners of the plaintiff makes it a different partnership incapable of carrying on as plaintiff the suit for and on behalf of the old partnership as asserted in paragraph no. 6 of the respective written statements ? (4) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit as it has transferred its business to one ‘Lok Housing and Construction Limited’ as asserted in paragraph no.7 of the respective written statements ? (5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the agreement dated 31st July 1987 being Exhibit -D to the plaint is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants ? (6) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the supplemental agreement dated 31st July 1987 being Exhibit-E to the plaint is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants ? (7) Whether the defendants prove that there exists dispute regarding the extent of the land being the - 4 - subject matter of the suit as asserted in paragraph no.3 of the respective written statements ? (8) Whether the plaintiffs prove that it has performed its part of the agreement in full as asserted in paragraph no.23 of the plaint ? (9) Whether the plaintiffs prove that it was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform its part of the agreements dated 24th December 1982 and 31st July 1987 (Exhibit-B and D hereto) and supplemental agreement dated 31st July 1987 (Exhibit-E hereto) as asserted in paragraph no.24 of the plaint ? 8. The plaintiffs in suit no.3228/1991, to file their affidavit of evidence alongwith compilation of the original documents within 2 weeks from today. Place suit no.3228/1991 for hearing and final disposal on 16th March 2009. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]