O R D E R

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.671 of 2018 in O.S.No.501 of 2015 dated 12.08.2020 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore whereby dismissed the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to reject the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit O.S.No.501 of 2015 is a partition suit for two shares and the revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.501 of 2015 for partition of the suit schedule property claiming to be the only legal heir of late I.Lalitha against the legal heirs of late K.B.Vadivelu. Both the deceased constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of “Vijay Tex” as per the terms of the partnership deed dated 22.08.1979 and the firm has also been registered with the Registrar of Firms, Coimbatore bearing No.618 of 1979. As per Clause 11 of the Partnership deed the death or retirement of any one of the partners shall not dissolve the firm. The learned counsel further submitted that the said partnership firm had purchased the land measuring 20 cents comprised in S.F.No.105/1, Kuniyamuthur Village, Coimbatore Taluk as per Sale deed dated 06.09.1979 registered as Doc.No.2408 of 1979. Out of this 20 cents, the said firm had conveyed 09 cents and 432 sq.ft to a third party in the year 2002 and retained the balance land measuring 10 cents and 568 sq.ft.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the plaint, the said I.Lalitha continued the partnership business after the demise of late K.B.Vadivelu and she died on 14.11.2013 and therefore in respect of the suit schedule land, she is entitled for half share as per Hindu Succession Act and the balance half share belongs to the legal heirs of late K.B.Vadivelu and filed the suit against the legal heirs of late K.B.Vadivelu. In the plaint, the respondent has conveniently suppressed the fact that after the death of K.B.Vadivelu, the said I.Lalitha had admitted the legal heirs of K.B.Vadivelu as partners namely V.Sarojini, V.Parthiban, V.Jayakumar and V.Sivakumar to the said partnership firm as per Admission deed dated 24.02.2012. The said deed was executed after the death of late K.B.Vadivelu on 28.02.2012. By the retirement deed dated 11.05.2012, the said V.Sarojini with the said V.Parthiban and V.Sivakumar retired from the partnership firm with effect from 11.05.2012 and the said I.Lalitha and the petitioner herein had continued the partnership business. Further as per the retirement deed dated 13.11.2013, the said I.Lalitha retired from the partnership firm and the partnership firm was reconstituted by the petitioner herein along with one S.Gunavel who was admitted to the partnership firm. Further the said S.Gunavel also retired from the partnership firm as per the Reconstitution and retirement deed dated 13.05.2015, thereby the said S.Gunavel retired from the partnership firm and one M.Suresh Kumar was inducted as a partner to the firm. At present the petitioner herein and M.Suresh Kumar are the only partners of the partnership firm Vijay Tex and the said firm is still in existence.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the nature of the suit schedule property, suppression of various facts and various documents executed during the life time of the respondent's mother I.Lalitha and the existence of the firm, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.671 of 2018 in the above suit to reject the plaint on the ground that the respondent herein cannot seek partition of the firm's property. However, the learned Judge has dismissed the said petition vide order dated 12.08.2020 on the ground that the issues raised by the respondent would be considered only at the trial of the suit and the documents relied upon by the petitioner would also be considered only at the trial of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ha