Back
REKHA BORANA
Sai Polyplast – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition against order rejecting application. (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff's failure to annex partnership deed. (Para 2) |
| 3. specific pleadings for recovery of loan established. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. non-joinder of party not grounds for dismissal. (Para 6) |
| 5. revision petitions dismissed with directions. (Para 7 , 8 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. limitation raised but excluded due to covid-19. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. preliminary issue regarding limitation to be framed. (Para 12 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 13/2023
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendants has been rejected.
2. The case of the petitioners/defendants is that the respondent/plaintiff has not annexed the partnership deed along with the plaint and further did not implead one of the partners who was a necessary party to the suit, therefore, the suit, in absence of the impleadment of a necessary party, was not maintainable. He submitted that therefore, the suit was barred in terms of the pro
The court determined the limitation period for a suit regarding cancellation of a sale deed commences at the deed's execution date, emphasizing the need for evidential examination.
The court established that limitation must be determined through evidence, and a fresh cause of action arose only from the execution of the sale deed in 2021.
Limitation claims on declaration suits necessitate evidence for proper determination, preventing outright dismissal of plaints under procedural grounds.
The exceptions under Section 69(3)(a) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, apply to suits seeking rendition of accounts between partners after the dissolution of a firm.
A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained by partners of a dissolved firm; and claims are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act.
A suit for recovery of money by partners of an unregistered firm is not maintainable under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which mandates registration for such suits.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
