The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of a partnership concern under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, renders the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, inapplicable. Additionally, the judgment underscores the importance of filing defamation suits within the limitation period and the necessity of including the publisher as a party in such cases.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.744 of 2016 in O.S.No.607 of 2015.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Fair and Decreetal order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.744 of 2016 in O.S.No.607 of 2015 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the Plaint.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 13 in the suit. The suit in O.S.No.607 of 2015 was filed before the District Court, Coimbatore, directing the defendants 1 to 15 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards damages for loss of reputation a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards loss of Good will.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent/plaintiff is a Club which has filed a suit claiming damages against the petitioners and other defendants. The respondent/Plaintiff is neither a juristic person nor a human being. Therefore, it has no locus standi to file a suit alleging that it has loss its reputation or goodwill. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Club has no legal entity and it can neither sue nor be sued in its name. Further, the respondent Club is represented by its Managing Partner, however, no where it was pleaded that it is a Partnership Firm registered under the Partnership Act. Therefore, the suit is barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The petitioners would further submit that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the petitioners have filed an Interlocutory Application before the trial Court to reject the Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter statement stating that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is not applicable to this case. The respondent/plaintiff contended that the Firm is duly registered under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act, 2000. Therefore, by virtue of Section 4 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2000, the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, shall not be applicable to the respondents who are registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act. Further, the contention of the petitioners that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of non-registration of Firm cannot be entertained. The respondent/plaintiff contended that the petitioners have caused great hardship and irreparable damages to the reputation and goodwill of the respondent's Firm and hence, the present suit was filed for damages. The reputation of firm has spoiled to a great extent by means of a wrong publication of news Article in the Media. The respondent submitted that it has all right to sue in its capacity and hence, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is maintainable under Law. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

5. After hearing the arguments adduced on either side, the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, by his order dated 17.02.2020, dismissed I.A.No.744 of 2016 stating that the Plaint Document No.15 is the Certificate of Incorporation issued under Limited Liability Partnership Act for the plaintiff's Partnership Firm, Pollachi Classic Club Resorts LLP. Therefore, once the partnership concern is registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is not applicable by virtue of Section 4 of Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. Hence, the bar under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act will not be attracted as against the respondent plaintiff and therefore, the learned Judge dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Challenging the same, the defendants 1 and 13 are before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Court below had failed to appreciate the fact that the entire case of the pla