IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC and the principles of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 1st February, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-05 (Central District), Tis Hazari Court (hereinafter "Trial Court"), by way of which the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/revisionist under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") stands dismissed. The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner:

"a) Set aside Impugned Order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge-05 (Central District), Tis Hazari Court, in the matter between the parties herein;

b) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent herein."

2. The record of the matter reveals that the respondent herein had preferred a suit for rendition of accounts, permanent injunction and recovery of share against the petitioner before this Court pursuant to disputes having been arisen between them pertaining to their business and dealing with each other. The suit was transferred to the Tis Hazari Court, i.e., the present Trial Court due to the change in jurisdiction of the Courts. In the said suit, the petitioner had preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit and as such the suit was barred by limitation under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, (hereinafter "the Partnership Act") and that certain facts had been concealed by the respondent herein. The said application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 1st February 2023, aggrieved of which the petitioner is now before this Court assailing the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court had rejected the said application without considering the facts of the case as well as the grounds/submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/revisionist in the application at the time of addressing the arguments.

4. It is submitted that as per Section 69 of the Partnership Act, the suit filed by the respondent is barred because it is a settled principle of law that partners in an unregistered partnership firm cannot sue for enforcement of a right arising from unregistered partnership deed. Furthermore, the respondent has nowhere pleaded in their plaint that the firm is already dissolved. Thus, the suit filed by the respondent is nowhere covered by any of the exceptions provided under section 69 of the Partnership Act.

5. It is also vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the suit of the respondent is liable to be dismissed for concealment of facts and forgery committed by the respondent himself who have been behind the bars in Case FIR No.0111 dated 17th April 2015 Police Station Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide Case No.142/15.

6. It is further submitted that the instant suit is also time barred as the transactions pertain to 2004 however, the respondent filed the suit in the year 2014 and this was not considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law, settled by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the learned Trial Court has failed to take into account that the suit of the respondent is liable to be dismissed as the there is no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit with the Trial Court.

7. It is submitted that the respondent claimed that the Court has jurisdiction on the basis of alleged execution of Deed of Partnership as well Guarantee papers. However, no cause of action ever arose within the jurisdiction of the Court.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is unjustified, unwarranted and contrary to law and has b