IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Suit for enforcing right of avoidance of a document on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation as also statutory rights of seeking declaration and injunction can be filed by an unregistered partnership firm.
(2) Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by the plaintiff of a suit for declaration and injunction, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2018, as passed by the High Court of Gujarat ¹ [for short ‘the High Court’] in Civil Revision Application No. 241 of 2017, whereby the High Court has allowed the revision application filed by the contesting defendants (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein) and has reversed the order dated 07.04.2017, as passed by the Court of 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara² [for short ‘the Trial Court’] in Special Civil Suit No. 333 of 2015.

2.1. By the said order dated 07.04.2017, the Trial Court had rejected the application moved by the contesting defendants under Order VII Rule 11(d), Order XXX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908³ [for short ‘the Code’] read with Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932⁴ [for short ‘the Act of 1932’] for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit filed by and on behalf of an unregistered partnership firm was barred by law. The Trial Court essentially held that, on its subject-matter relating to the validity of the sale deed in question, the bar of Section 69(2) was not operating against this suit. However, the High Court has taken a contrary view of the matter and has held that the plaintiff, being an unregistered firm, would be barred to enforce a right arising out of the contract in terms of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932.

3. We may take note of the factual matrix and the background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the question calling for determination in this matter, i.e. as to whether the subject suit, filed by an unregistered partnership firm, is covered by the bar created by Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932?

The relevant factual matrix and background

4. For a proper comprehension of the subject-matter, worthwhile it would be to take note of the status of respective parties before dilating on the pleadings and submissions.

4.1. The appellant herein is an unregistered partnership firm by the name “Shiv Developers.” It is stated that this firm is engaged in the business of construction of buildings and is comprising of two equal partners, namely, Mr. Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri and Mr. Jignesh Kanubhai Desai. The said Mr. Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri is also referred to as ‘the administrator’ of this firm and has filed the suit on behalf of the firm.

4.2. In the suit so filed by the plaintiff-appellant, a partnership firm in the name “Aksharay Developers” has been arrayed as defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) whereas the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 namely, Dineshbhai Bhailal Bhai Patel, Arjunsinh Narayansinh Rajput, and Ranjitsinh Narayansinh Rajput (respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein) have been joined in their capacity as the partners of the defendant No. 1 firm. As shall be noticed hereafter, the composition of this firm, in the name “Aksharay Developers” with the said persons as partners, is itself a matter of contention in the suit so filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The Municipal Commissioner and the Town Development Officer of Vadodara Municipal Corporation have also been joined as defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit but they are not the contesting parties in relation to the subject-matter of this appeal.

5. Now, we may briefly refer to the relevant aspects of the case of appellant, as emerging from the plaint averments.

5.1. The plaintiff-appellant has averred that on 26.11.2013, the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 p