ORDER

This petition had been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.10.2019 of the Learned III Additional District Judge, Salem in I.A.No.336 of 2018 in O.S.No.346 of 2017.

2. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that there is no privity of contract between the Petitioners herein, who were impleaded as Defendants in this suit in O.S.No.346 of 2017 and the Respondent. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited attention of this Court to the averments made in the plaint, which has been enclosed along with the typed set. It is seen that before filing of the suit, one A.Chennakrishnan S/o.Aswath Raman, who is the third Defendant, R.Badri Narayanan, S/o.Ramoji and Anantha Subramanian, S/o.Ramachandran as parties 'A' part had entered into a Rental Agreement with 'B' - parties viz., one V.Sarala Gunasekaran, S.Asik Hussain, S/o.T.Sandu Mohammed & V.Manivannan, S/o.Velayautham. The Rental Agreement dated 05.04.2009 was not a registered document. Subsequently, a Partnership Deed was entered into between the said 1) Sarala Gunasekaran, 2) Ashik Hussain and 3) Manivannan with partnership firm by M/s.Mass Promoters, which is not a registered firm.

4. The suit had been filed by M/s.Mass Promoters, claiming a sum of Rs.68,26,982/- along with interest 6%. As the Plaintiff's Firm is not a registered firm, the firm cannot seek relief against the Defendants for the sum claimed in the suit.

5. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that subsequent to the formation of partnership firm viz., M/s.Mass Promoters, which is not a registered partnership firm, the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking money of Rs.68,26,982/-. S.Ashik Hussain is the Managing partner of the said Firm.

However, there is no cause of action between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the cause of action in the plaint. Therefore, the Defendants had filed a petition in I.A.No.336 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action between the Defendants 1 to 6 and the Plaintiff M/s.Mass Promoters. The III Additional District Judge, Salem, by an order dated 24.10.2019 in I.A.No.336 of 2018 in O.S.No.346 of 2017 had dismissed the petition to reject the plaint.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited further attention of this Court to the averments in the petition in I.A.No.336 of 2018 filed by the Defendants 1 to 6, wherein it is stated that the Defendants 4 & 5 are Trustees and the Defendants 6 & 7 were former Trustees of the Trust. The Trust owns land and building, which was leased to individuals viz., Sarala Gunasekaran, Ashik Hussian and Manivannan, by way of a lease deed dated 05.04.2009. The above said lessees formed an unregistered partnership firm being the Respondent/Plaintiff herein in I.A.No.336 of 2018. The lessees subsequently constructed building and sub let the building to several tenants and earned profit. They collected several lakhs as advance from the sub tenants and officially collected amount of Rs.60,500/- as rent from those sub tenants per month. The HR & CE Department took over the Trust in the year of 2013 as the trust was an endowment. Thereafter, the properties of the trust comes under the control of HR & CE Department as per the order of the Court. There is no jural relationship between the Petitioners and the Respondent, however, a vexatious suit has been filed as informa pauperis by Respondent claiming an amount of Rs.68,26,982/- as reimbursement for renovating the building put up on the land owned by trust from the Defendants.

8. It is a settled position of law that an unregistered partnership firm can not sue and can not be sued with respect to the third parties. The present suit has been filed by the Respondent, which is an unregistered firm, and hence, it is barred by law. Therefore, the Court has to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Fur