The court affirmed the maintainability of a suit based on a joint compromise agreement, establishing that a valid cause of action existed despite arguments regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and the commercial nature of the dispute.

ORDER :

P.T. ASHA, J.

While the civil revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos.1203 & 1421 of 2025 have been filed by the defendants to set aside the orders dated 18.12.2024 and 13.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.1014 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, respectively, the civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.1412 of 2025 has been filed by the defendants to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.1014 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

2. The parties are being referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

3. Before proceeding to discuss the grounds, on which, the defendants seek to strike of the plaint, it would be apposite to briefly allude to the facts as set out in the plaint in O.S.No.1014 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, as below:

3.1 The above referred suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,84,11,886/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realization.

3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2, Rishi Ganesh, plaintiff's son and Meenakshi Sundar were partners of the firm called 'Sri Saravana Constructions'. The third defendant is the father of the first defendant and father-in-law of the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the father of the second defendant and father-in-law of the first defendant.

3.3 The plaintiff would contend that he is engaged in the business of Highways contract with the Government of Tamil Nadu as an 'A' Class Contractor. The first defendant is also a Contractor with the Highways Department of the State of Tamil Nadu since 2013. The first defendant has approached the plaintiff with a request to jointly operate the contracts through the firm 'Sri Saravana Constructions' and after negotiations, a partnership agreement was entered into, in and by which, Rishi Ganesh, the plaintiff's son and Meenakshi Sundar, the plaintiff's cousin, had been inducted as partners along with the defendants 1 and 2 and Iyyappan. Rishi Ganesh, at that point in time, was a minor. After he had attained majority, a revised deed was executed on 30.04.2020. The firm Sri Saravana Constructions is a registered firm and the bank accounts were to be operated by the first defendant jointly with Rishi Ganesh and all the contracts and other official documents were to be signed by both the first defendant and the said Rishi Ganesh till 13.07.2021.

3.4 The plaintiff would further contend that in order to develop the business of the partnership firm, he had arranged for financial assistance from his friends, S.Ramachandran of Pudhukottai, S.Selva Saravanan also of Pudhukottai and Saravanan of Coimbatore. That apart, the plaintiff had also contributed his personal funds for the partnership firm. By reason of the infusion of these funds, the firm had signed various contracts with the Highways Department at Tiruppur, Ottanchatiram, Palani and Mettupalayam and was doing very well. However, due to certain differences of opinion among the partners, it was decided that the business would be continued by defendants 1 and 2 and the said Rishi Ganesh and Meenakshi Sundar would retire. It was further agreed that the defendants 1 and 2 would settle the amounts, which was lent by the plaintiff and which he had brought in from third parties as well. In furtherance of this agreement, Rishi Ganesh and Meenakshi Sundar had retired.

3.5 The plaintiff would submit that since he had susp