The denial of receipt and execution of a document cannot be the sole ground for rejection of a plaint. The decision of a quasi-judicial authority does not necessarily operate as res judicata in a civil suit.

1. The arguments advanced by Mr.K.S.Sankhar Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned counsel for the first respondent are heard.

2. The first defendant in the Original Suit in O.S.No.81 of 2011 is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for the following reliefs:

"(a) Dissolution of partnership;

(b) Rendition of accounts; and

(c) Equal distribution of the assets of the partnership."

All those prayers have been made based on another prayer that a deed of retirement from partnership dated 19.05.2010 was null and void and that the said document should be declared null and void. Of course, while framing the suit, the prayers for the other reliefs had been placed above the prayer for the relief of declaration of the deed of retirement to be null and void. Such a defect shall be only in the form and it cannot be stated to be a material defect to assume that the earlier prayers were not based on the subsequent prayer.

3. The first defendant, viz., the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, after entering appearance and filing a written statement in the suit in O.S.No.81 of 2011, chose to file an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.105 of 2012 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the rejection of the plaint on the following grounds:

"(a) The plaint does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) The suit is barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988;

(c) The plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material fact and abuse of process of Court insofar as the first respondent/plaintiff had chosen to deny the execution of a document executed by him and receipt of a huge amount viz., Rs.2,30,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Thirty Lakhs only) for his retirement from the partnership."

4. The learned trial Judge, after hearing, opined that a plea made in the plaint to the effect that some of the properties purchased in the name of one Meenakshi, who was not a partner at the relevant point of time, were purchased out of the partnership assets and hence, the property should also be construed to be a property of the partnership firm, was hit by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. However, taking into account the fact that the said plea of the first respondent/plaintiff was not the ground on which the main reliefs in the suit had been sought for and the said claim was only incidental to the main reliefs, the learned trial Judge chose to stop with the observation that such a plea would be barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

5. So far as the contention of the revision petitioner that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action is concerned, the learned Trial Judge considered in proper perspective the averments made in the plaint and came to a conclusion that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and hence, the prayer for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action was bound to be discountenanced.

6. So far as the other ground alleged by the revision petitioner is concerned, the learned Trial Judge disagreed with the contention of the revision petitioner, which resulted in the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.105 of 2012 by order dated 17.04.2013, which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. The matter stands listed today for admission. Mr.K.S.Sankhar Murali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner put forward the very same arguments, which were advanced before the lower Court, in the Civil Revision Petition also. The main submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the first respondent/plaintiff, having admitted the receipt of Rs.2,30,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores and Thirty Lakhs only) by executing a document of undertaking and thereafter, confirming the same by executing a document of retirement from the