ORDER

1. Petitioners have preferred present civil revision under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to "CPC") being aggrieved by impugned order dated 30/11/2023 passed in RCS Case no. B/337/2021 by Civil Judge, Class-I, Junior Division, Indore (X Additional Judge to District Indore ), whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by petitioners has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 /plaintiff filed money suit against petitioners for for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,49,247/-, whereas the contention of the plaintiff firm is that, the defendants's firm purchased clothing from the plaintiff firm and in the said business transaction an outstanding amount of Rs 1,49,247 was remained unpaid. During pendency of the suit, petitioners preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 30/11/2023 by observing that the said issue may be decided after recording of evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred present Civil Revision before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the plaintiff has not disclosed the fact as to whether the plaintiff firm was registered firm or not? and the partnership firm was registered, therefore, the suit filed by unregistered firm is not maintainable. The trial Court has committed error of law and fact while dismissing his application. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed under section 7 Rule 11 of CPC be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the trial Court has dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the petitioners only on the sole ground that it may be adjudicated after recording of evidence.In the instant case, the moot question arises for consideration whether an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to be decided on the allegations in the plaint and filing of written statement and evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Agrawal Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation and others reported in 2015(4) MPLJ 495 has observed as under :

“22. An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed, if the allegations made in the plaint taken to be correct as a whole on its face value show the suit to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by any law or not would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, for deciding this question, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant."

7. In exercise of powers under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed.

8. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai 8 Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, has held that powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC must be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial.

9. Respondent/plaintiff has preferred civil suit on behalf of partnership firm through its partner Saurabh Agrawal. In the case of Govindaraja Naicker Vs. Sapthagiri Complex reported in (1994) ILR ( Karnataka) 1832 it has been held as under:

"In the case of unregistered