A suit by an unregistered partnership firm to enforce statutory or common law rights, such as eviction under a registered lease, is not barred by the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, and pure legal objections regarding maintainability do not justify filing an additional written statement at a trial stage.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

_____________________________________

JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

+ C.R.P. No. 1453 of 2025

% 02.04.2026

# STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, ONGOLE and another

.. Petitioners

Vs.

$ M/S SRI VENKATA RAMANA ESTATES, with its office at Ongole, Prakasam District

.. Respondent

! Counsel for petitioner : Sri VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA

^ Counsel for respondents: Sri T SREEDHAR

CASES REFERRED:

1. [2025] 1 S.C.R. 902

2. (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 250

3. (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3329]

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1453/2025

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order and Decree dated 05-03-2025 passed in IA.No.1829 of 2024 in OS.No.295 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Family - cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, consequently allow the said IA.No.1829 of 2024 as prayed for, and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. T SREEDHAR

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

C.R.P.No.1453 of 2025

This Court made the following

ORDER:

The present C.R.P. is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.1829 of 2024 in O.S.No.295 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Family-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole wherein the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC to receive additional written statement was dismissed.

2. Petitioners herein are the defendants and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the convenience of this Court the parties herein are referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/landlord for eviction of suit schedule property and for recovery of rental / lease due amount along with applicable service tax including TDS / GST and also repairs carried out to suit schedule property. Pending suit the petitioners/defendants filed the present application i.e., I.A.No.1829 of 2024 in O.S.No.295 of 2015 under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC to permit them to file additional written statement as part of record in the main suit. Admittedly, the chief evidence as well as cross-examination of the plaintiff was completed but before letting the evidence by the defendants they come with this application seeking permission to file additional written statement. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed counter in I.A before the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the subject additional written statement is only a legal submission that whether the registered partnership firm can institute a suit without proving or filing certificate of registration under Section 69(2) of Partnership Act, 1932 (for short “Act, 1932”)

4. Therefore, the plea of filing additional written statement is only a legal plea / additional pleading