C.L. Soni, J.—Respondent No.2 is shown as not served. However, since he is not a necessary part for the purpose of deciding this petition, learned advocate Mr. A.J. Shastri rightly requested to permit him to delete respondent No.2 from the title clause of the petition. Permission as sought is granted. The respondent No.2 stands deleted from the title clause of the petition.

2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (defendant No.1) has challenged the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar below application Exh.96 in Special Civil Suit No.40 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein is barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (‘the Act).

3. Learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 has prayed for one third share in the joint family (partnership business) and for getting the accounts of that business as well as for dissolution of the partnership in the suit and therefore, such suit is not barred under Sectio