901-IA-290-2019.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 290 OF 2019 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 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:8900 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