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 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 11th 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 15th 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 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.18 10:42:37 +0530 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