The court affirmed that a suit for dissolution and accounts is not barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, as it falls within the exceptions provided for unregistered firms.

Order :

(REKHA BORANA, J.)_

1. The present revision petitions arise out of the same order impugned and hence, were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The present revision petitions have been preferred against the order impugned dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Civil Original Suit No.57/2012 whereby two applications under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as preferred on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 & defendant Nos.4 to 6 respectively, were dismissed.

3. The facts are that a suit for dissolution, rendition of accounts, recovery and permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff Vinod Kumar before the Court of Additional District Judge, Parbatsar. In the said suit two applications under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC were filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.4 to 6 respectively.

4. The grounds raised by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their applications was primarily that the Court at Parbatsar did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question as the registered office of the partnership firm was at Rajkot. Further, no cause of action arose to the plaintiff at Parbatsar and hence, the Court at Parbatsar had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question.

5. Defendants No.4 to 6, while raising the above ground of territorial jurisdiction also raised an additional ground to the effect that the suit in question was barred by law in terms of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1932’). It was averred that the plaintiff was not a partner in defendant No.4-firm and hence, in terms of Section 69(1) of the Act of 1932, had no right to sue defendant No.4-firm and its partners.

6. The learned Trial Court proceeded on to reject both the applications with an observation that there was a specific clause in the partnership deed in question reflecting the administrative office of the firm in question to be at Parbatsar. The Court further observed that the partnership deed dated 01.04.1994 was an admitted document and hence, the specific clause of the said deed wherein the administrative office of the firm was mentioned to be at Parbatsar, would also be termed to be admitted.

7. The Court further observed that even otherwise, while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC the Court is required only to consider the averments as made in the plaint and the documents as annexed with the plaint. As per the averments of the plaint, the firm had an administrative office at Parbatsar and even the income tax returns of the firm were filed at Parbatsar till the year 2014. The Court therefore observed that prima facie the plaint could not be rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

8. In the specific opinion of this Court, the finding as recorded by the learned Trial Court qua territorial jurisdiction is totally in consonance with the documents as annexed with the plaint as well as the law governing the issue. Clause 2 of the partnership deed dated 01.04.1994 read as under:

9. A bare perusal of the above clause reflects that it was agreed between the parties that the administrative office of the business of the firm would be at Parbatsar, District Nagaur. The effect and application of the above clause to the present suit in question would definitely be a subject matter for an issue to be framed and decided by the Court. Definitely, the plaint cannot be rejected on the count of lack of jurisdiction.

10. So far as judgment in Subodh Kumar Gupta V. Shrikant Gupta & Ors.:1993 (2) SCC 1 as relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners is concerned, therein the averments made in plaint were ‘vague’ and nothing was placed on record to establish that b