The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'civil nature' as per Section 9 of CPC and the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts under the Companies Act.

1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 18.4.2013 passed in I.A.No.294 of 2009 in O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of District Court, Sivagangai.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 3 and 4, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of District Court, Sivagangai. The respondent filed the suit for a preliminary decree declaring that respondent is entitled to 1/10th share in suit scheduled property and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for dividing the suit property by metes and bounds as per the final decree based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner.

3. The sixth defendant in the suit filed written statement. The petitioners filed I.A.No.294 of 2009 for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C on the ground that the said suit is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Companies Act. According to the petitioners, all the properties belong to the private limited companies which are separate legal entity. Without winding up of the company, a person is not entitled to claim share in the properties. Secondly, the petitioners contended that alternatively the respondent can claim partition in the Company Law Board.

4. The respondent in his counter stated that all the properties standing in the names of Private Limited Companies were purchased by the grand father and all the properties belong to joint families. The grandfather floated the companies and the properties retained the character of joint family properties. The respondent is not claiming any right under the provisions of Companies Act. The claim of respondent is civil right and O.S.No. 34 of 2009 filed by the respondent is a civil proceedings. Hence, the suit is maintainable and not barred by provisions of Companies Act.

5. The learned Judge considered the pleadings and Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for respondent herein and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners and respondent and dismissed the application. Against the said order of dismissal dated 18.4.2013, the petitioners are before this Court by way of present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that the companies are separate legal entities and therefore, the properties cannot be construed to be a joint family properties. The joint family cannot own a company registered under the Companies Act. The joint family may have a share in the company but, can never own a company under the provisions of the Act. The learned Judge erred in holding that suit for partition of properties belonging to the company is maintainable. He also further contended that the learned Judge erred in applying doctrine of lifting the corporate veil under the companies Act and the same is not the subject matter of application. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Judge ought to have held that the properties owned by the companies can be dealt with only as per the provisions of Companies Act.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent argued that the claim of the respondent is not as per the provisions of Companies Act. The suit is for the partition of joint family properties. Only the members of the joint family are share holders of the company. No outsider is a shareholder in the company. The petitioners have not denied the fact that only the joint family members are shareholders of company. There is no bar under the Companies Act for initiating civil proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment reported in 2003 (3) CTC 184 [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs. and another vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala and Others]. In the said judgment, the Apex Court held that dispute between parties is essentially civil dispute and not one which will fall under the provisions of Companies Act. The provisions seeking bar of jurisdiction of c