IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.Nos. 2747, 2750 & 2752 of 2023 and C.M.P.Nos. 16950, 16945 & 16951 of 2023

1. S.Veera Ragavan

2. S.Gopalasubramaniyan @ Ravi

3. S.Akila

4. S.Seethalakshmi ... Petitioners in all C.R.P.s -Vs-

1. M/s. Vishwa Keerthi Housing Enterprises, Partnership Firm rep. by its partners W.R.Muralidharan R.Kalyanasundaram 2. W.R.Muralidharan

3. R.Kalyanasundaram ... Respondents in all C.R.P.s Prayer in C.R.P.No. 2747 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.02.2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.6520 of 2018 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai.

Prayer in C.R.P.No. 2750 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.02.2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.6528 of 2018 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai. Prayer in C.R.P.No. 2752 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.02.2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.6529 of 2018 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner in all C.R.P.s : Mr.Nissar Ahamed, Senior Advocate for Mrs.Kowser Sulthana I. COMMON ORDER Challenging the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 22.02.2023 passed in I.A.No. 2 of 2020 in O.S.No. 6520 of 2018, in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No. 6528 of 2018 and in I.A.No. 2 of 2020 in O.S.No.6529 of 2018 passed by XVII Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai respectively, the Revision Petitioners/defendants have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions. 2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

3. The revision petitioners are the petitioners in applications filed I.A.Nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2020 and the defendants in the suits in O.S.Nos. 6520, 6528 and 6529 of 2018. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the revision petitioners/defendants for the relief of specific performance and other consequential relief. On receipt of notice, the revision petitioners/defendants filed three applications in I.A.Nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2020 in O.S.Nos.6520, 6528 & 6529 of 2018 praying to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

respectively.

4. The contention of revision petitioners/defendants is that the 1^st plaintiff is admittedly an unregistered firm and not registered as contemplated under Sec.58 and 59 of Indian Partnership Act. Therefore, the suit as such is not maintainable as there is a statutory bar under Sec.69 of the Act. Sec.69(2)

of the Indian Partnership Act defines as follows :-

“Sec. 69 (2) No suit to enforce a tight arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.”

By invoking the said proposition, the learned counsel for revision petitioners would argue that the 1^st respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as it is an unregistered firm. Therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected. But, the trial judge without appreciating the said legal proposition erroneously dismissed the petition filed by them. Hence, they prayed to allow these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. The learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the suit filed by plaintiff is for the relief of specific performance arising out of joint venture agreement. Therefore, the suit as such is maintainable. The registration of firm is not required to be enclosed in the suit and the relief is claimed only under the Transfer of Property Act and not under the Indian Partnership Act and the same was rightly appreciated by the trial judge, which needs no interference. Hence, he prayed to