The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the registration of a partnership firm under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act in determining the maintainability of a suit.

A short question is raised for consideration in this revision, which is preferred by the original defendants challenging the order dated 29/07/2016 passed by the Court of 7th Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.934/2007, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Hence the revision is being decided at the stage of admission itself.

2. In a suit filed by respondent for specific performance of contract, the said application was filed by the defendants contending inter alia that though the suit was filed for specific performance of contract for enforcing the alleged rights arising from the contract entered into between the plaintiff firm and defendants, there was not a single document produced on record, as admitted by the plaintiff himself, to show that his partnership firm was registered. Hence, it was submitted that a suit by unregistered partnership firm being barred by law, the suit needs to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter will be referred to as “Act” for convenience).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that this application was however dismissed by the trial court ignoring the admission given by the plaintiff in his cross-examination that he has not produced on record any document to show that partnership firm was registered. It is urged that considering the very admission given by plaintiff himself, learned trial court should have held that the suit is barred by law in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Act and rejected the plaint at the very stage itself. According to him, impugned order passed by learned trial court, therefore, rejecting his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, being not just, legal and correct, it needs to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff has supported the impugned order, by pointing out that no such admission was given by the plaintiff in his cross-examination that the partnership firm was not registered; he has only stated that he has not placed on record any document showing the registration of the partnership firm. It is submitted that, in this revision the respondent has produced on record the xerox copy of the registration certificate of partnership firm, and in view thereof, the matter needs to be sent back to the trial court, without making any interference in the impugned order of the trial court.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners, however, submits that in the xerox copy of the registration certificate, which is produced by the respondent in this revision, the name of the partnership firm is mentioned as “Safal Land Developers, Promoters and Builders”, whereas in the plaint the name of the partnership firm is shown as “M/s. Safal Developers through its Partner Prakash Santoshrao Mohod”. It is urged that the address of the partnership firm given in the registration certificate is also different from the one given in the plaint, and therefore, it cannot be accepted that this registration certificate is of the same partnership firm, on whose behalf the suit was filed. It is also submitted that there was absolutely no averment made in the plaint that the said partnership firm was registered. Hence, it is urged that in the absence of any such averment, it cannot be accepted that the partnership firm was registered and hence in view of Section 69 of the Act, the suit was not maintainable.

6. In my considered opinion, if the cross-examination of the plaintiff is perused, it can be easily seen that he has specifically denied the suggestion that his partnership firm is not registered with the Registrar Office. The only admission given by him is that he has not placed on record any document to show that it was a registered partnership firm and he was the partner of the said firm. It is a different thing to say that partnership firm is not registered and