A suit by a partnership firm is maintainable under Section 69 if the partner suing is registered, regardless of prior unregistered status.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA C.R.P.(PD).No. 404 of 2025 &

C.M.P.No. 2510 of 2025 Uzhavan Tex, Rep by its Proprietor, P.Subramani S/o. Palanisamy No.115/42C, Cauvery Road, Veerappanchatram, Erode District – 638 004. ...Petitioner Vs.

Samy Ayyappa Sizing Mill, Rep. by its Partner, S.Jaganathan, S/o.Subramanian, Lakshmi Garden Sulli Kadu, Veerappanchatram, Erode District – 638 004. ...Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 13.11.2024 made in IA.No.1 of 2023 in COS.No.38 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode.

For Petitioner : Mr. D.Gopal

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the dismissal of their application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the plaint in COS.No.38 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode, the defendant is before this Court. The short facts are herein below set out.

2. The respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.466 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode, for a recovery of a sum of Rs.6,97,297/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum for Rs.6,18,537/- from the date of the suit till realisation.

3. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff / respondent firm is running a sizing mill and the defendant / petitoner concern was a partnership firm. The petitioner was running a power loom factory and they used to send the materials for sizing to the plaintiff on a job work basis. The two had been having business relationship from 03.04.2015 to 09.11.2017. In the course of this business a sum of Rs.6,18,537/- fell due from the petitioner to the respondent. The respondent claim interest on the said amount. Since the request and demand which included legal notice, the respondent filed a suit in question for the relief setout therein.

4. A written statement has been filed by the petitioner herein in the month of September 2019, wherein they admitted the business relationship with the respondent. However, they denied that they owed a sum of Rs.6,18,537/-. The petitioner would contend in their written statement that they had transaction with one K.C.Rajendran, partner of the respondent firm from 03.04.2015 till 09.11.2017 and during this period the said Rajendran would send the yarn for sizing under a job work.

5. The said Rajendran had agreed to pay the amount due for the shortage of yarn after sizing. In the normal course shortages do not occur. However, due to the negligence of the respondent and his workers such shortages would occur and it is for this reason that Rajendran the partner of the respondent firm had agreed to compensate the shortage.

6. The petitioner had also put forward a contention that the partner Rajendran and the manager of the respondent firm would send a coolie bills which was settled by the petitioner, for which no receipts were issued. According to the petitioner the respondent was due and owing a sum of Rs.9,66,566/- towards shortage of yarn. It is also contended that the partnership agreement would indicate that the respondent had become one of the partner of the respondent firm only on 01.09.2017 and was therefore not aware about the transaction that took place prior to that date.

7. Thereafter, an additional written statement came to be filed on January 2023, in which the petitioner had raised a plea that the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the Trial as the respondent firm was not registered one as contemplated under Section 69 of the Partnership Firm. They had also pleaded that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act , which mandates pre institution mediation and settlement. They had also pleaded limitation.

8. Simultaneously, the petitioner taken ou