IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was central to the Court's decision, along with the consideration of evidence and suppression of relevant documents.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 55781/2023, CM APPL. 55778-79/2023(for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of.

CM(M) 1760/2023

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by ADJ-04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (`Trial Court'), in CS No. 264/2019, titiled as Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. v. Bonlon Traders, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the applications of the defendants filed under; (i) first under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') seeking deletion of defendant no.3 i.e., the Petitioner herein and (ii) second under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC seeking return of plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant no.3. The Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, Respondent No.2 is the defendant no.2 and Respondent No.3 is the defendant no.1 before the Trial Court.

1.2. The Respondent No.1 filed a civil suit (CS No. 264/2019) for recovery of Rs. 32,10,274/- on 18.03.2019 on the assertion that Respondent No. 3 is a partnership firm constituting its two (2) partners.

1.3. The defendants filed a common written statement in the said suit on 08.07.2019, and averred that nothing is due and outstanding from M/s Bonlon Traders to M/s Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. It was further averred in the said written statement that M/s Bonlon Traders (i.e., defendant No. 1) is not a partnership firm but it is a proprietorship firm under the proprietorship of Mr. Anil Kumar Jain i.e. defendant no.2 and therefore name of the Petitioner herein i.e., defendant no.3 should be deleted from the array of parties.

1.4. Thereafter, the defendant no.3 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC on 06.06.2019, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the suit has been filed for recovery of money advanced to defendant no.1 i.e., M/s Bonlon Traders a sole proprietorship concern of defendant no.2, the Petitioner herein i.e., defendant no.3 is not a necessary or a proper party.

2.1. He states that in the common written statement filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2, it has been categorically pleaded that defendant no.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and not a partnership firm as pleaded in the plaint. He states that in the replication, the plaintiff has not traversed the said pleading.

2.2. He states that the Petitioner has placed on record at Annexure P-7 and P-8 with this petition, documents issued by third parties such as bank and statutory authority which record that defendant no.1 is the sole proprietorship concern of defendant no.2.

3. In reply, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, i.e., the plaintiff states that the Petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands.

3.1. He states that the Petitioner on 31.10.2023 made an incorrect statement before this Court that there is no partnership concern by the name of M/s Bonlon Traders. He states that as per the information available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (`MCA'), their exists BONLON Enterprises Limited Liability Partnership (`LLP'); and the Petitioner herein is the designated partner in the said firm along with his father i.e., defendant no.2.

3.2. He states that as per the information available in MCA, Petitioner and defendant no. 2 have also incorporated a company by the name of BONLON Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. (`company'). He states that Petitioner is a director in the said company.

3.3. He states that the registered address of the LLP and defendant no.1, the sole proprietorship concern is same and he also relies upon the email address of the LLP available on MCA website which is common with defendant no. 1. He states that the email address of LLP is bonlontraders@gmail.com.

3.4. He states that as set out in the plaint and more specifically at paragraph `7' therein, both d