SAI POLYPLAST Vs. SANTOSH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dtd. 21/11/2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendants has been rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioners/defendants is that the respondent/plaintiff has not annexed the partnership deed along with the plaint and further did not implead one of the partners who was a necessary party to the suit, therefore, the suit, in absence of the impleadment of a necessary party, was not maintainable. He submitted that therefore, the suit was barred in terms of the provisions of Partnership Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Seth Loonkaran Sethiya and Ors. vs. Mr. Ivan E. John and Ors.; [1997 (1) SCC 379]. Counsel further submitted that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and therefore also, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dtd. 21/11/2022.

(3.) The order specifically takes note of the pleadings as made by the plaintiff in her plaint. The suit is for recovery of certain amounts and it has been specifically pleaded in the plaint that the amount which was given as a loan to the defendants was not repaid to her and therefore, she was entitled for recovery of the said amount from the defendants. A specific pleading has been made that the defendants have closed down their business premise and have left from the said premise 18 months ago. Therefore, the cause of action arose to the plaintiff from that date. A bare perusal of the plaint makes it clear that the specific pleadings regarding the loan amount being given and the same having not been repaid have been made in the plaint. Further, the closure of the factory premises has been pleaded to be a cause of action for filing of the present suit. In the opinion of this Court, the findings as arrived by the court below cannot be faulted with as the same are totally reasoned and in terms of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11, CPC.