ORDER :

B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.

1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 6732/2016 on the file of the LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [CCH-57] (for short, 'Civil Court') has filed this revision petition impugning the order dated 5.4.2017 whereby, the petitioner's application [I.A. No. 4] under Order VII, Rule 11[d] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'the CPC'] is rejected.

2. The first respondent-plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'the Firm') has filed the suit in O.S. No. 6732/2016 for decree of specific performance with a direction to the second respondent and the petitioner to execute a registered lease deed for a period of eleven years ten months effective from the date of such registration asserting inter alia that it is entitled for such decree in terms of the registered Lease Deed dated 10.11.2004. The Firm has also sought for declaration that the registered Lease Deed dated 1.8.2016 executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner-is void ab initio and not binding on it.

3. The petitioner, who has filed written statement contesting the suit, has also filed I.A. No. 4 under Order VII, Rule 11[d] of the CPC for rejection of the plaint asserting that the suit is barred by law. The petitioner has asserted in support of this application that the Firm is not registered as required under the provisions of Section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [for short 'the Act'] and because the partnership deed is not registered, the suit would be barred under Section 69 of the Act. It is also contended by the petitioner that the partners now mentioned in the plaint as representing the Firm were not partners as of the date of the cause of action and therefore, the suit filed by the present partners representing the Firm would not be maintainable in law and therefore barred by law.

4. The Civil Court on reading the plaint in its entirety and considering the plaint documents which includes the Partnership Deed dated 10.11.2004, the subsequent Re-constitution Deed dated 12.11.2008 and appropriate Form-D issued by the Registrar of Firms for affirmation of registration of the reconstitution of the Firm, has rejected the petitioner's application specifically concluding that the partners of the Firm have filed the plaint in terms of the provisions of Order XXX of the CPC and the Firm is a registered Firm prima facie even according to Form-D issued by the Registrar of Firms.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the provisions of Order XXX of the CPC argued in support of the petition to persuade this Court to accept that even from the plaint averments, it is obvious that the initial partners of the Firm were Sri B.T. Muralidhar and Smt. P. Lakshmidevi, but the Firm has been subsequently reconstituted with Smt. P. Lakshmidevi retiring and Smt. Nalini Muralidhar being incorporated as a partner of the Firm. The cause of action for the suit would be the date of incorporation of the Firm on which date Smt. Nalini Muralidhar was not a party and therefore the suit would not be in conformity with the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 1 of the CPC.

6. However, it is seen that though the Firm has referred to the date of the execution of the lease deed dated 10.11.2004 and the subsequent reconstitution of the Firm on 12.11.2008 with Smt. P. Lakshmidevi retiring from the Firm and Smt. Nalini Muralidhar joining the Firm as a partner, it is specifically pleaded that the cause of action for the suit arose on 20.06.2016 the date on which the partners categorically informed the second respondent about the intention to seek renewal and called upon them to execute appropriate lease deed. It is obvious from the pleadings, as observed by the Civil Court, that as of the date of the alleged cause of action, the Firm was represented by its two partners as mentioned in the plaint. If they were partners of the Firm as on the date of the cause of action, it would be indisputable that they could present the plaint as pa