ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the fair and decretal orders dated 08.6.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.16 of

2019 on the file of the Principal District Court at Tiruvallur.

2. The revision petitioners are defendants 4 and 5 in the said suit.

Respondents 3 to 6 /plaintiffs have filed the said suit seeking the relief of specific performance and for permanent injunction. The above suit was originally filed before this Court under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction as C.S.No.199 of 2007 and later, it was transferred to the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur and got renumbered as O.S.No.16 of 2019. During the pendency of the said suit, an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by defendants 2 and 3 namely respondents 1 and 2 herein to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Even when the matter was pending before this Court, an earlier application in A.No.4439 of 2015 was filed by the first defendant for the same relief, which was renumbered as I.A.No.5 of 2022 after transfer of the said suit to the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur. By the impugned common order, both I.A.No.1 of 2019 and I.A.No.5 of 2022 were dismissed. Challenging the order in I.A.No.1 of 2019, the above civil revision petition has been filed. However, in this civil revision petition, this Court is not concerned with I.A.No.5 of 2022, as it was not challenged.

3. The facts leading to filing of I.A.No.1 of 2019, are as hereunder:

The suit which was originally filed before this Court under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction in C.S.No.199 of 2007 by the plaintiffs, had been subsequently transferred on the point of jurisdiction to the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur and got renumbered as O.S.No.16 of 2019; the said suit had been filed for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement dated 08.8.2006; there are two connected suits pending in C.S.Nos.197 and 198 of 2007; originally the respective first defendant in the suits filed applications in A.Nos.3562 to 3564 of 2010 for revocation of leave granted and A.Nos.4437 to 4439 of 2015 for rejection of the plaints; the said applications were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide an order dated 23.11.2016; however, the said common order was challenged by filing O.S.A.Nos.104, 105, 110, 111, 122 and 123 of 2017; and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide a common judgment dated 23.7.2018, upheld the orders passed in A.Nos.3562 to 3564 of 2010 and set aside the orders passed in A.Nos.4437 to 4439 of 2015 and transferred the suits to the file of the District Court, Tiruvallur.

3.1. The first plaintiff's firm is an unregistered firm, which is involved in commercial activities; as per law, the partnership deed should be registered as on the date of filing of the suit and an unregistered firm cannot enforce any right, which arises from the contract in view of the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932; the suit has been filed to enforce the alleged right that has arisen from a sale agreement, which is a contract; since the first plaintiff firm is an unregistered firm as on the date of filing of the suit, no right arising out of a contract can be claimed before a Court; as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, if the document of contract is not registered after amendment, such document shall not have any effect for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; since the agreement in question is an unregistered one, that cannot be looked into by the Court below for any purpose in view of the bar under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act and hence, the plaint should be rejected.

4. Respondents 3 to 6 /plaintiffs resisted the application to reject the plaint by filing their counter by alleging that the issue of rejection of plaint had already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its common