DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR.versusPILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2191 : 2025 INSC 1046

                 Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr.
                                 v.
                     Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2025)
                                26 August 2025
               [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether Order XXX Rule 10 CPC in any manner debar a suit filed
       against the proprietor.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXX, R.10 and Or. VII,
       R.11 – Appellant filed a suit for eviction – Defendant no.1 was
       Aditya Motors (the lessee), a sole proprietorship concern of
       PDP – An application was filed by appellant u/Or. VI, R.17
       CPC seeking amendment of plaint – One of the amendments
       sought was that the lessee-defendant no.1 be deleted and,
       in its place, PDP be substituted as representative of the
       lessee – Amendment was allowed – After the amendment,
       the defendant moved an application u/Or. VII, R.11 CPC to
       reject the plaint on the ground that since the plaint had been
       amended and Aditya Motors has been deleted and in its
       place PDP has been substituted, the plaint does not disclose
       any cause of action against PDP – Trial Court rejected the
       application u/Or. VII, R.11 CPC – However, the High Court
       by the impugned order has allowed the revision merely
       relying upon the provisions contained in Or. XXX Rule 10
       CPC – Correctness:
       Held: 1. The Trial Court was right in rejecting the application under
       Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The High Court committed serious error
       in relying upon Order XXX Rule 10 CPC. [Para 4]
       2. The use of the word can in Order XXX Rule 10 CPC only
       indicates that proprietorship concern may be made a party –



* Author
2192                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    However, it does not necessarily mean that the proprietor
    itself if made a party would not be enough, inasmuch as, the
    proprietorship is to be defended by the proprietor only and not
    by anybody else – Once the proprietor has been impleaded as
    a party representing the proprietorship, no prejudice is caused
    to rather its interest is well protected and taken care of by the
    only and only person, who owns the proprietorship – Order XXX
    Rule 10 CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed
    against the proprietor. [Para 4.2]

                            Case Law Cited
    Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar and Another [1998] 5
    SCC 567; Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra
    Pradesh and Others [2008] 10 SCR 905 : (2008) 8 SCC 536 –
    relied on.

                              List of Acts
    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

                           List of Keywords
    Proprietorship; Order XXX, Rule 10 of CPC; Order VII, Rule 11;
    Proprietorship concern cannot be equated either with a company
    or with a partnership firm.

                          Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 of the High Court
    of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRP No. 1679 of 2019

                       Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellants:
    K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rao Vishwaja, P. Vamshi Rao,
    Ms. Tatini Basu.
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    S.S. Prasad, Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Advs., Ms. C. K. Sucharita,
    Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Rahul Reddy, Shivang
    Goel, Ishaan Aggarwal, Ojas Mittal, Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2193

     Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

      Vikram Nath, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated
      19th October, 2023 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
      at Amaravati, whereby the Civil Revision Petition No.1679 of 2019
      filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed. The order passed by
      the Trial Court dated 2nd July, 2018 was set aside, and further the
      application I.A. No.429 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11, Code of
      Civil Procedure, 19081, was allowed and the plaint of Original Suit
      No.118 of 2012 was rejected.
3.    Relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as
      follows:
      3.1 Admittedly, the suit schedule property is in the ownership of the
          appellants. One Aditya Motors (the lessee), a sole proprietorship
          concern of Pilla Durga Prasad (P.D. Prasad) requested the
          appellant to lease out the same. Accordingly, under a registered
          lease deed dated 13th April, 2005, the schedule premises was
          leased out to Aditya Motors. Thereafter, it appears without the
          consent of the owner-appellant, Aditya Motors inducted M/s.
          Associated Auto Services Pvt. Ltd.
      3.2 After the expiry of the lease period, the lessee did not vacate
          the premises. The appellant after due notice under Section 106
          of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, filed a suit for eviction
          of not only the lessee but also M/s. Associated Auto Services
          Pvt. Ltd. and its two directors. The lessee was impleaded as
          defendant no.1, M/s. Associated Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. was
          impleaded as defendant no.2 and the two directors as defendant
          nos.3 and 4.
      3.3 During the pendency of the proceedings, an application for
          seeking amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of


1    CPC
2194                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


         the CPC was filed by the appellant. One of the amendments
         sought was that the lessee-defendant no.1 be deleted and, in
         its place, Pilla Durga Prasad be substituted as representative
         of the lessee. The cause title of the suit, thus, changed from
         Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and another Vs. Aditya Motors and
         others now stood as Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and another Vs.
         Pilla Durga Prasad and others. The amendment was allowed by
         order dated 28th March, 2018, which order was not challenged,
         and it attained finality.
    3.4 Later on, after the amendment, the defendant moved an
        application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on
        the ground that as the registered lease deed dated 13th April,
        2005 was with Aditya Motors and now since the plaint had been
        amended and Aditya Motors has been deleted and in its place
        Pilla Durga Prasad has been substituted, the plaint does not
        disclose any cause of action against Pilla Durga Prasad, and
        as such was liable to be rejected.
    3.5 The appellants objected to the said application stating that Aditya
        Motors was a proprietorship concern with Pilla Durga Prasad
        as its sole proprietor and since proprietorship concern is not a
        juristic person, therefore, it would not make any difference if the
        proprietor was made a party as representative of Aditya Motors,
        which description remained in the cause title. The cause of
        action was actually against Pilla Durga Prasad as he alone was
        the signatory to the registered lease deed. Pilla Durga Prasad
        being the proprietor of Aditya Motors and he having signed the
        registered lease deed as representative and proprietor of Aditya
        Motors, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was liable
        to be rejected. The cause of action, if any, was always against
        the proprietor and not the firm. The use of Aditya Motors was
        only for the purposes of carrying on the business and not for
        any other purpose. It was only Pilla Durga Prasad, who was
        the relevant person.
    3.6 The Trial Court after considering the rival submissions rejected
        the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by order dated 2nd
        July, 2018. Aggrieved by the same, revision was filed before
        the High Court by Pilla Durga Prasad. The High Court by the
        impugned order has allowed the revision merely relying upon the
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        2195

     Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.


           provisions contained in Order XXX Rule 10 CPC. According to
           the High Court, the proprietorship concern ought to have been
           made a party as it could be sued but it could not sue on its
           own. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is before us.
4.    We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused
      the material on record. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court
      was right in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
      The High Court committed serious error in relying upon Order XXX
      Rule 10 CPC. The reasons for our conclusion as noted above are
      as follows:
      4.1 A proprietorship concern is nothing, but a trade name given
          by an individual for carrying on his business. A proprietorship
          concern is not a juristic person. It cannot sue, however, in view
          of Order XXX Rule 10 CPC, it can be sued. In order to analyse
          the said provision, it would be appropriate to reproduce the
          same. It reads as follows:
                “10. Suit against person carrying on business in name
                other than his own.—Any person carrying on business
                in a name or style other than his own name, or a
                Hindu undivided family carrying on business under
                any name, may be sued in such name or style as if
                it were a firm name, and, in so far as the nature of
                such case permits, all rules under this Order shall
                apply accordingly.”
      4.2 The use of the word can in Order XXX Rule 10 CPC only
          indicates that proprietorship concern may be made a party.
          However, it does not necessarily mean that the proprietor
          itself if made a party would not be enough, inasmuch as, the
          proprietorship is to be defended by the proprietor only and not
          by anybody else. Once the proprietor has been impleaded as
          a party representing the proprietorship, no prejudice is caused
          to rather its interest is well protected and taken care of by the
          only and only person, who owns the proprietorship. Order XXX
          Rule 10 CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed
          against the proprietor.
      4.3 It is well settled by series of judgments that proprietorship
          concern cannot be equated either with a company or with a
2196                                                             [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


            partnership firm. Order XXX deals with partnership basically,
            however, Rule 10 thereof refers to proprietorship. It makes very
            clear that proprietorship concern cannot sue but it can be sued.
            Whether proprietorship concern is sued in its name or through its
            proprietor representing the concerned is one of the same thing.
            The High Court seems to have taken completely hyper technical
            view not realising that there was no prejudice caused and the
            cause of action very much accrued against the proprietor as he
            alone had signed the lease deed on behalf of the proprietorship
            concern and there was no involvement of any second or third
            party, whose interest could be said to have been prejudicially
            affected. Once the interest of the proprietorship concern was
            taken care of by the proprietor having been impleaded nothing
            further remained.
     4.4 In Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar and another2,
         this Court explained that a proprietary concern is only a business
         name and that Order XXX Rule 10 is merely enabling, the real
         party being the proprietor. The relevant portion of the same are
         reproduced hereunder:
                   “6. A partnership firm differs from a proprietary concern
                   owned by an individual. A partnership is governed by
                   the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
                   Though a partnership is not a juristic person but Order
                   XXX Rule 1 CPC enables the partners of a partnership
                   firm to sue or to be sued in the name of the firm.
                   A proprietary concern is only the business name in
                   which the proprietor of the business carries on the
                   business. A suit by or against a proprietary concern
                   is by or against the proprietor of the business. In the
                   event of the death of the proprietor of a proprietary
                   concern, it is the legal representatives of the proprietor
                   who alone can sue or be sued in respect of the
                   dealings of the proprietary business. The provisions
                   of Rule 10 of Order XXX which make applicable the
                   provisions of Order XXX to a proprietary concern,
                   enable the proprietor of a proprietary business to be


2   (1998) 5 SCC 567
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            2197

    Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.


                   sued in the business names of his proprietary concern.
                   The real party who is being sued is the proprietor of
                   the said business. The said provision does not have
                   the effect of converting the proprietary business into
                   a partnership firm. The provisions of Rule 4 of Order
                   XXX have no application to such a suit as by virtue
                   of Order XXX Rule 10 the other provisions of Order
                   XXX are applicable to a suit against the proprietor of
                   proprietary business “insofar as the nature of such
                   case permits”. This means that only those provisions
                   of Order XXX can be made applicable to proprietary
                   concern which can be so made applicable keeping
                   in view the nature of the case.”
     4.5 Similarly, in Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of
         Andhra Pradesh and others3, this Court emphasised that
         in proceedings involving proprietary concerns, representation
         may be in the trade name or through an authorised agent with
         personal knowledge, yet the proprietor remains the real party
         in interest. For reference, the relevant portions of the same
         are as follows:
                   “16. In regard to business transactions of companies,
                   partnerships or proprietary concerns, many a time
                   the authorised agent or attorney holder may be
                   the only person having personal knowledge of the
                   particular transaction; and if the authorised agent or
                   attorney holder has signed the complaint, it will be
                   absurd to say that he should not be examined under
                   Section 200 of the Code, and only the secretary
                   of the company or the partner of the firm or the
                   proprietor of a concern, who did not have personal
                   knowledge of the transaction, should be examined.
                   Of course, where the cheque is drawn in the name
                   of the proprietor of a proprietary concern, but an
                   employee of such concern (who is not an attorney
                   holder) has knowledge of the transaction, the payee
                   as complainant and the employee who has knowledge


3   (2008) 8 SCC 536
2198                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


                   of the transaction, may both have to be examined.
                   Be that as it may. In this case we find no infirmity.”
5.   Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
     The Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law to decide the suit
     on its own merits.
6.   Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan