BHAVYA BUILDERS Vs. SUPER PROPERTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the court below dismissing IA -III filed by 7th defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

(2.) THE suit has been filed seeking dissolution of the 1st defendant firm and for rendition of accounts. A declaration that Item Nos. 1 & 2 of the suit schedule properties were purchased by 2nd defendant - partner of the firm by using the funds of the firm and hence they were the properties of the plaintiff -firm has been sought. A further declaration that gift deeds dated 16.11.2010 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 4th defendant and the sale deed dated 14.06.2013 executed by defendants 2 & 4 to 6 in favour of 7th defendant were not binding on the plaintiff -firm because they were sham transactions, is also sought. Another declaration is sought to the effect that the agreement of sale entered into on 06.06.2006 by the 2nd defendant - partner of the firm to purchase Item No. 3 of the suit schedule property was for and on behalf of the firm.

(3.) THE application was resisted by the plaintiff. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings and the respective contentions of the parties, has held that question regarding jurisdiction of the court has to be examined by framing necessary issue and the question of bar of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact would be examined at the stage of trial. However, as regards the bar contained under Section 69(2) of the Act for maintaining a suit by an unregistered firm, the Trial Court has held that the nature of relief sought by the plaintiff -firm were not hit by the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Act. It is in this background, this revision petition has been filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order.