Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1035
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Anil Kumar-X, J.
Smt. Neeta Tulsyan – Petitioner
Versus
M/S Bhoomi Creators And Developers Firm And Other – Respondents
Civil Revision No. - 128 of 2026
Decided On : 12-08-2026
For the Revisionist : Ashutosh Kumar Pal, Devaang Savla, Sagar Mehrotra
Headnote:(A) Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 69(2) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Bar on suit by unregistered firm for enforcement of contractual rights - Order VII Rule 11 application cannot be rejected merely on ground that question of registration involves mixed question of law and fact - Court must examine plaint and material to see if statutory bar apparent.
(B) Principles for examining objection under Order VII Rule 11(d) founded on Section 69(2): (i) examine plaint as a whole to ascertain nature of right sought to be enforced; (ii) determine if plaintiff is a partnership firm and whether it was registered on date of suit; (iii) if bar is apparent from plaint and documents, court cannot defer decision; (iv) absence of averment of registration is relevant but not conclusive - silence alone not treated as admission of non-registration - plaintiff must be afforded opportunity to address issue. (Paras 21, 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist-defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff partnership firm, contending that the firm was unregistered and thus the suit was barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The trial court rejected the application observing that the objection involved a mixed question of law and fact, which could be decided only after evidence. The revisionist challenged the order.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the trial court's approach was legally unsustainable. The statutory bar under Section 69(2) can be examined at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 if apparent from the plaint. The plaintiff did not plead registration even after specific objection; however, since the plaintiff was not heard, no final finding on registration was recorded. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in light of the principles laid down.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on the ground that the objection regarding registration of the plaintiff-firm involved a mixed question of law and fact and could be decided only after evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, if the statutory bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act is apparent from the plaint and documents that can legally be considered, the court is required to examine the same and cannot defer the matter merely by describing it as a mixed question of law and fact. However, where an essential factual ingredient such as non-registration is disputed and cannot be conclusively determined, the court must afford opportunity to the plaintiff before rejecting the plaint. Result : Revision allowed. Impugned order dated 18.05.2026 set aside. Matter remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in accordance with law and in the light of the principles noticed. (Paras 25, 26, 28)”,
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar-X, J.
1. Sri Sagar Mehrotra and Sri Devaang Savla, learned counsel for the revisionist is present.
2. This instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 18.5.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No. 803 of 2025 (M/s Bhoomi Creators and Developers vs. Smt. Neeta Tulsyan and others).
3. Briefly stated, the respondent-plaintiff, a firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Bhoomi Creators and Developers Partnership Firm, having its office at House No. 51/27, Ramganj, Kanpur Nagar, instituted a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the revisionist- defendants. It was pleaded that a developer agreement had been executed between the respondent-firm and the revisionists, under which the revisionists, being the sole owners and co-owners of Arazi Nos. 467-A and 467-B, were required to first seek partition of their respective shares and obtain mutation in their favour in respect of Arazi No. 471 and thereafter deliver possession of the said land to the respondent-firm. The respondent- firm was thereafter required to develop the land by raising new constructions thereon. It was further pleaded that, in pursuance of the agreement, the respondent-firm had performed its part of the obligations and had obtained necessary permissions from various government departments. However, despite the respondent-firm having performed its part of the agreement, the revisionists failed to perform their obligations under the agreement.
4. The revisionists appeared and moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the respondent-firm was an unregistered partnership firm and, therefore, the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. The trial court, by order dated 18.05.2026, rejected the application, observing that the objection raised by the revisionists involved a mixed question of law and fact, which could be decided only after the parties had led their evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act bars a suit instituted by an unregistered partnership firm for enforcement of a right arising from a contract. He relied upon the judgment in Pathik Udayan Bhatt Vs. M/s Shakti Infotech & Others, 2024 Supreme (Guj) 1772, and submitted that a plaint in such a case is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
6. He further submitted that a bare reading of the plaint shows that the respondent-firm has nowhere pleaded that it is a registered partnership firm, nor has it disclosed its registration number, which, according to him, is necessary for maintaining a suit by a partnership firm. Reliance was placed upon Md. Mofazzular Rahman & Others Vs. Md. Sarfaraz Alam & Others, 2021 AIR (Cal) 148, wherein it was held that the registration of the partnership firm is a jurisdictional fact which must be pleaded in the plaint to avoid the suit being rendered not maintainable.
7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the trial court erred in holding that the question of registration involved a mixed question of law and fact. According to him, the plaint itself does not disclose the registration of the firm and, in view of the statutory bar under Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, the issue could be decided on the basis of the pleadings alone. The trial court, therefore, committed an error of law in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the impugned order, the plaint and the material placed on record. The respondent-plaintiff has not appeared, as the revision is being heard at the admission stage.
9. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the learned trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on the ground that the objection raised by th
