IMPORTANT POINT
A suit cannot be instituted by an unregistered partnership firm, as per Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, rendering such suits barred by law.

JUDGMENT :

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)

1. This Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is arising out of the order 04.09.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara, whereby the application submitted by the applicant-original defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) in the suit filed by the Respondents-original plaintiffs came to be rejected.

2. The facts emanating from the captioned Civil Revision Application are that the respondent No.1 herein is the partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of Cheque Book Printing Software/CTS Software as also working in the field of Annual Maintenance Contract of the said Softwares by way of AMC, and the respondent Nos.2 to 3 are its partners, who preferred the Regular Civil Suit No.600 of 2016 against the applicant herein, seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the use of Cheque Book Printing Softwares CTS Softwares, wherein they have claimed that the present applicant was earlier working and assisting in the respondent No.1-Partnership Firm as the Software Developer till 17.01.2016. Thereafter, the applicant disassociated himself with the said partnership firm on his own, and, therefore, the applicant no longer remains to be the associate of the respondent No.1-partnership firm. The respondents have also claimed in the suit that Cheque Book Printing Softwares/CTS Softwares are created by them and subsequently got it registered to prevent it from any infringement. In short, the said softwares are the registered softwares being used by the respondents since long. It is also alleged in the suit that the applicant herein was being paid on mutual agreed terms, i.e., based on installation of the said sold softwares, and during the applicant’s work tenure with the respondent No.1-firm, he was made to understand by the respondents about the basic fundamentals of marketing of sale of their above mentioned properties as also taught him about how to carry on the AMC works for those sold out softwares which were installed at the different places. The same was done by the respondents because of the utmost good faith and confidence they had in the applicant.

3. It is also averred in the suit that the applicant has misused the above mentioned properties of the respondents at various Banks and Financial Institutions in the market without prior written consent and permission of the respondents herein. It is alleged in the said suit that the applicant herein was caught by the respondents for doing the illegal acts of cheating and spoiling the name of the respondents in the market. The respondents have claimed that the applicant himself had confessed through e-mail dated 29.09.2014 that he had directly sold out the software of the respondents without even obtaining their consent and permission. Thereafter, the applicant gave assurances vide several communications and e-mails that he would not again commit such type of illegality and irregularity, and upon such assurance being given by the applicant, he was again reinstated in the said firm by the respondents. Thereafter, the applicant, on his own, left the respondent-Firm. However, after some time, it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the applicant, after leaving their firm, despite giving written assurances that he would not commit any such illegal activity again, he has used the software of the respondents in the market without obtaining the consent or permission of the respondents, which compelled the respondents to file the aforementioned suit.

4. Upon summons being served to the applicant, the applicant appeared through his advocate and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the suit/plaint on the ground that the trial court concerned has no jurisdiction as per the relevant provisions of law as well as on other grounds. The said application came