VALIA PARAMBIL KUTTANversusENGINEERING COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENTS

                                                                      44-WP9816-2026.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 9816 OF 2026

                      Valia Parambil Kuttan                                ...Petitioner
                                      Versus
                      Engineering Components And Equipments              …Respondent

                      Mr. C. S. Joshi, a/w Abhay M. C. Joshi, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Mandar Surve, a/w Umesh Chavan, i/b D. S. Hatle, for the
                           Respondent.

                                                   CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                   DATED:     16th SEPTEMBER, 2026

         Digitally
         signed by
         SANTOSH
                      Oral Order:-
SANTOSH SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
         2026.09.18
         10:42:37
         +0530

                      1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.    The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 11 th

                      June, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby an

                      application preferred by the petitioner – defendant to direct the

                      plaintiff to produce the original Deed of Partnership, came to be

                      rejected.

                      3.    The petitioner had initially filed a petition assailing an

                      order passed by the trial Court on 15 th February, 2025 thereby

                      rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for framing

                      additional issues. In the said petition, having regard to the

                      nature of the suit, this Court had categorically observed that

                      the defence of bar to the institution of the suit under Section 69
                                                     1/2
                                                  44-WP9816-2026.DOC

of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, (‘the Partnership Act’) was

clearly misconceived.    This Court had referred to binding

precedents in the cases of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh

Property1 and Haldiram Bhujiawala and anr. vs. Anand Kumar

Deepak Kumar and another2.

4.   The instant application came to be preferred with the

assertion that there were discrepancies in the Firm Registration

Certificates issued by the Registrar of Firms. The controversy

sought to be raised by the petitioner – defendant does not at all

arise for adjudication in the suit as having regard to the nature

of the relationship between the parties and prayers in the plaint,

the provisions contained in Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act

have no application whatsoever.

5.   Evidently, the petitioner, who is in possession of the

subject premises, is trying to delay the disposal of the suit

though the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed long back.

Thus, this petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-

to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services

Authority, Thane, within a period of two weeks.




                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

1    (1998) 7 SCC 184.
2    (2000) 3 SCC 250.
                               2/2