Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
S. Santhosh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
V. Poornachandran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court order rejecting plaint dismissal application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on unregistered partnership and suit maintainability. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. oral terms establish cause of action; revision petition dismissed. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.2283 of 2024 by the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the plaint stating that the alleged partnership claimed by the plaintiff as such is erroneous. Based on that, the suit as such is not maintainable. He had also contended that there is no cause of action arose for filing the suit. But, the court below failed to consider the same and erroneously dismissed the application. Aggrieved over that, he preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3.The learned counsel for revision petitioner/defendant would submit that the trial judge failed to take note of the fact that the alleged partnership firm was unregistered one and their transaction was n
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
