Suits between partners of an unregistered partnership firm for recovery of money are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.02.2023 passed in Money Suit No.9 of 2016 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Seraikella whereby the petition under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant has been rejected by the learned court.

3. Mr. Kumar Harsh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an unemployed person and belongs to scheduled caste category. Indian Oil Group Company had floated an Advertisement Notice for appointment of retail sellers for different places in Jharkhand. In clause-11 it has been disclosed that the persons belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes will be given the facilities. The petitioner being eligible had applied for Kanke Ranchi area and for the same has deposited the requisite fee and thereafter, the Indian Oil Company Limited has communicated vide letter dated 29.06.2009 to the petitioner regarding proposal of retail out-let dealership at Adityapur, district Seraikella -Kharsawan and the Letter of Intent with respect to dealership granted to the petitioner in Kanke area dated 14.9.2004 was issued to the petitioner has been withdrawn with immediate effect. It has been withdrawn on the ground that the company has not been able to provide the land in that area. However, later on again the retail petrol out-let dealership was provided to the petitioner and the petitioner was running the retail petrol out-let dealership with its ease. However, the plaintiff/O.P. approached the petitioner and offered for providing the working hand to run the said retail petrol out-let as he was a local resident and his father was working as Dy. Superintendent of Police in Hazaribagh. The Plaintiff/O.P has provided some working hand to the petitioner and used to visit the retain out-let on day- to-day basis and thereafter the plaintiff/O.P has ousted the petitioner and grabbed the retail petrol out-let on which the petitioner has made application before the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan. The said fact was also brought to the knowledge of the authorities of Indian Oil Corporation and the company further requested the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan for assistance of the petitioner as the petitioner was having difficulty in operating the retail petrol out-let and one F.I.R was also registered as Adityapur P.S. Case No.183 of 2013 against plaintiff/O.P. Final Form was submitted stating that the allegations are found to be incorrect. He submits that for operation of the said retail petrol out-let the petitioner and the opposite party/plaintiff have entered into partnership agreement and the terms and conditions have been decided and he submits that plaintiff/O.P has said to be invested a sum of Rs.35 lacs for operation of the said retail petrol out-let and in due course of time, the loss was occurring and in view of that the said retail petrol out-let has been closed. He submits that in this background, the plaintiff/O.P. has instituted Money Suit No.9 of 2016 for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.35 lacs from the defendant/petitioner. The said partnership firm was an unregistered firm and in light of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 the suit is barred. He refers to the said clause and submits that the firm was an un-registered partnership firm and the money suit against another partner is not maintainable and to buttress his such argument he relied in the case of Sunkari Tirumala Rao and Others V. Penki Aruna Kumari reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 125 and relied on paragraph nos.8,15,16 and 17 of the said judgment which are as under:

“8. It is evident from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 that it assumes a mandatory character. Section 69(1) prohibits a suit amongst the