Defendant sought rejection of a plaint for possession of suit premises, arguing a suit based on an unregistered partnership was not maintainable. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court found no case for rejection of the plaint and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
15 cra 75.24.odt..odt
2024:BHC-NAG:10953
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.75 OF 2024
Gopal Tarachand Lilade (Vs.) Nanakchand Sohanlal Agrawal
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for applicant.
CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J . DATE : 27.09.2024
Heard learned Advocate for the applicant.
15 cra 75.24.odt..odt
2/3
till 30.09.2017. However, while preparing the agreement it was prepared as a nominal leave and license agreement. It was reduced into writing on 21.09.2015. It is stated that the partnership between the plaintiff and defendant came to an end on 30.09.2017. It is alleged that the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the premises. It is further alleged that defendant has started claiming the right in the property as a tenant on the basis of so called leave and license agreement. He has also started depositing the rent of the premises in the account of the owner of the property.
15 cra 75.24.odt..odt
3/3
partnership was with regard to the readymade garment business and not with regard to the premises. The plaintiff is not claiming any relief viz-a-viz the partnership business. He is claiming right over the premises. It is his contention that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the premises. It is his case that he had inducted the defendant in his partnership business. It is not his contention that any right was created by him in favour of the defendant in respect of the premises. Learned Judge after taking into consideration this primary aspect of the matter came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the application and ultimately rejected it.
JUDGE
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2024 17:57:21
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaint in a suit for possession of premises should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit based on an unregistered partnership is not maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopal Tarachand Lilade
Nanakchand Sohanlal Agrawal
G.A. Sanap
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
