1. This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “the Code”] has been preferred by the original defendant in the suit for permanent mandatory injunction filed by the non-applicant-plaintiff.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and the defendant were residents of the same village and were sharing cordial relations. In October, 2013, they decided to purchase a JCB Machine by investing an equal amount of money. Both of them contributed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000-00 each, after which on 21st October, 2013, said machine came to be purchased. Financial assistance was also obtained by both of them by availing a loan. The machine was registered in the name of the defendant. Thereafter, on 27th November, 2014, an agreement was entered into between them agreeing to share the profits and losses from the said machine equally. According to the plaintiff, he was having a Driving License and was, therefore, operating the said machine. Though the plaintiff worked as an operator on that machine for a period of about two years, he was not paid anything by the defendant in that regard. In May, 2015, the plaintiff demanded his wages and also sought inspection of the records which was not permitted by the defendant. The plaintiff then learnt that all installments had duly paid and the defendant was intending to dispose of the said machine. On aforesaid basis, the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction that the defendant be directed to hand over the said machine for a period of two years in a proper condition to the plaintiff for operating the same. It was also prayed that the account books be produced and by appointing a Receiver for collection rent of the said machine, the same be distributed equally amongst the parties. An injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the said machine was also prayed for.

3. The defendant filed an application below Exh.12 under provisions of Order-VII, Rule 11 of the Code and it was averred that the suit was based on the agreement between the parties which constituted a partnership. As the partnership was unregistered, the suit was barred by provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [for short, “the said Act”]. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the trial Court by its order dated 10th November, 2015 rejected that application on the ground that there was no partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant. Being aggrieved, the defendant has challenged this order.

4. Shri R.M. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that on a proper reading of the Agreement dated 28th November, 2014, it was clear that the plaintiff and defendant had agreed to purchase the JCB machine jointly. It was further agreed that the profits as well as losses were to be equally shared. The necessary ingredients of creating a partnership were duly satisfied. However, as the said agreement was not registered, the suit seeking enforcement of rights that had accrued under the agreement was not maintainable. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 69 of the said Act. Relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Helper Girdharbhai Vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & others [(1987) 3 SCC 538], it was urged that there being a partnership agreement between the parties and the same not being registered, the suit was barred by provisions of Section 69 (2) of the said Act. The trial Court, without considering the material aspects of the matter, erred in rejecting the application filed by the defendant under provisions of Order-VII, Rule 11 of the Code. The suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

5. Shri D.V. Mahajan, learned counsel for the plaintiff, supported the impugned order. According to him, there was no partnership between the parties. It was merely agreed that the JCB machine would be jointly purchased and would be operated by the parties jointly. The absence of registration of the Agreement