Bombay High Court
MR UDAY GANPATRAO NAIK AND MEDICAL PETITIONER AND ORS.versusK. PORWAL AND SANGHVI DEVELOPERS THR. PARTNERS KISHOR S. PORWAL AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The trial court correctly refused to dismiss the plaint at the threshold because the registration issue must be decided on the merits, not on the pleadings.
Summary
The applicants filed a civil revision seeking to set aside the trial court's order that refused to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The applicants argued that the plaintiff, a partnership firm, was not registered under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, and therefore the suit should have been rejected at the pleading stage. The trial court held that the question of registration could not be decided on the pleadings and that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 must be based only on the plaint and documents annexed to it. It observed that the dispute over the firm's registration would be decided on the merits of the suit and therefore refused to dismiss the plaint. The High Court affirmed this reasoning, finding no error in the trial court's order, condoned the delay in filing the revision, and dismissed the civil revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether a plaint filed by a partnership firm that is not registered under the Partnership Act can be dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to reject the plaint on the ground of non‑registration of the partnership.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — s. Section 69
Subjects
- civil procedure
- Order VII Rule 11
- partnership registration
- maintainability of suit
- condonation of delay
- revision
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:8900
901-IA-290-2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 290 OF 2019
Swapnil
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 25374 OF 2019
Uday Ganpatrao Naik and
Medical Petitioner and Ors. … Applicants
Vs.
K. Porwal and Sanghvi Developers
Thr. Partners Kishor S. Porwal
and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Siddhartha Ravindra Ronghe for the applicants.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 17th February 2026
ORDER :
1. This application is for condonation of delay in filing the
civil revision application. The civil revision application is filed
by defendant nos. 1 to 4 to challenge the order passed by
the trial court rejecting their application under Order VII Rule
11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”).
2. The defendants contended that the plaintiff is not a
registered partnership firm. Hence, the suit would not be
maintainable in view of provisions of Section 69 of the Indian
1/4
901-IA-290-2019.docx
Partnership Act, 1932. The trial court court held that at the
stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the issue regarding
registration of the firm cannot be decided.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial
court though recorded a finding that the suit is filed by one
partner of the unregistered firm it is observed that the said
dispute will be decided on merits in the suit and if found
false, the defendants would be at liberty to claim
compensatory cost from plaintiff firm. Learned counsel for the
applicants therefore submits that once a finding is recorded
that the suit is filed by one partner of the unregistered firm,
the trial court should have rejected the plaint at the threshold.
4. I have perused the papers of the civil revision
application. The plaint is filed with a specific averment that
the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. The defendants in
their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC
contended that the plaintiff is not a registered partnership
firm. The trial court has referred to a reply filed by the
plaintiff’s advocate and further observed that in the reply it is
not categorically submitted that the plaintiff is a registered
partnership firm.
2/4
901-IA-290-2019.docx
5. The trial court has referred to the documents produced
on record by the defendants, which contain the letter issued
by the Deputy Registrar of partnership firms to support the
defendants’ contentions that the plaintiff is not a registered
partnership firm. With reference to the documents produced
by the defendants, the trial court observed that the dispute
would be decided on merits in the suit. The observations in
paragraph 8 of the impugned order, therefore, cannot be
interpreted to mean that the trial court has recorded any
positive finding based on the plaint and its supporting
documents that the plaintiff is an unregistered partnership
firm. It is a well settled legal principle that the rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be considered
only based on the plaint and the supporting documents and
the documents referred to in the plaint. The issue regarding
the maintainability of the suit on the objection that the firm is
not registered would therefore, require trial in the present
case. The trial court has therefore rightly refused to reject the
plaint at the threshold.
6. The observations in the impugned order are restricted
to the decision on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of
3/4
901-IA-290-2019.docx
the CPC. Hence, the issue of maintainability of the suit if any
shall be decided by the trial court in the suit at an appropriate
stage. I do not find any error in the impugned order
warranting any interference by this court.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find
it necessary to issue notice to the respondents for
considering the prayer for condonation of delay.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delay is
condoned and the interim application is allowed .
9. For the reasons recorded above the civil revision
application is dismissed.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…