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.

ORDER:

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

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 by which there is no possibility of change of nature of the suit or facts and there would not be any contradictions. That being so, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application of the petitioners/defendants on the ground that the plea of the subject additional written statement is contrary to the admissions made by the defendants in the previous pleadings. The subsequent pleadings are meant for denying or clarifying the facts stated in the written statement. Therefore, a fresh cause of action or a fresh case is not to be brought up by the additional pleadings. Therefore, prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff/respondent if the present application is allowed, the proposed additional written statement would be read as part and parcel of original written statement, where new contentions are put forth. As such, the said conclusion of the Court below is contrary to the substantial law as laid down under Section 69 (2) of the Act, 1932. Therefore, the dismissal of the application is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants to substantiate their claim, they relied upon that the plea as additional written statement is only a legal plea by which either nature of the suit or pleadings already as set out in the original written statement meant cause any change, for which they relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunkari Tirumala Rao & others Vs. Penki Aruna Kumari, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 902.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that the 1^st defendant is a tenant since 2005 and there is aregistered lease is in existence between the plaintiff and 1^st defendant and the said lease was had been continued without there being any express renewal. The plea of the plaintiff for eviction as well as recovery of rentals as well as taxes, damages is in accordance with terms of the lease. Therefore, the 1^st defendant admitted the registered lease agreement between the plaintiff and 1^st defendant. The party to the lease deed or agreement filed the present suit. Having admitted the existence of lease deed in terms of the lease and plaintiff is a party to the lease deed duly represented by i