IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P. No.154/2017 BETWEEN:
M/S. RAMACHANDRA HATCHERIES NO.14, KARKANA 3RD STREET GUGAL, SALEM-636 006 TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI R.S.SHANMUGAM MAJOR.
(BY SMT. THRIVENI P S, ADV.) AND:
M/S. KOMARLA FEEDS NO.44, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR K.R.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENED BY ITS GENERAL MANGER-FINANCE SRI KESHAVA MURTHY Y.
...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 PASSED ON IA.NO.1 IN OS.NO.8690/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULES 11 AND SEX.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2017 in O.S.No.8690/2015 on the file of the 43rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.8690/2015, filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,32,615/- with current and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a., till payment.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and selling of poultry feeds such as chicken and raw materials used as ingredients for poultry. At the request and confirmation by the defendant, the plaintiff had supplied raw materials for poultry. The defendant had to make payments to the plaintiff within 30 days on the supplies. As the defendant failed to pay the amount towards supply of poultry feeds, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of the above said amount.
4. On issuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, praying to reject the plaint on the ground that the Courts at Bengaluru had no territorial jurisdiction and the plaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties, as all the partners of the plaintiff-Firm have not been impleaded. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner/defendant. Hence, the present revision petition under Section 115 of CPC.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material on record including the certified copy of the plaint made available during the hearing of the petition.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration is:
Whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC?
7. Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The suit is one for recovery of money. Plaint averments would disclose that the plaintiff had supplied poultry feeds to the defendant at their request and confirmation. The defendant had to make payment for supplies made by the plaintiff within 30 days and if the payments are made over and above 30 days, the defendant has to make payment along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Since the defendant failed to make payment and to keep up the promise, the plaintiff issued notice on 14.05.2015 demanding the amount in question. As the defendant failed to fulfill his commitment, the suit for recovery is filed making the defendant M/s.Ramachandra Hatcheries represented by its Partner R.S.Shanmugam, as party.
8. It is settled position of law that while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court shall look into only the averments made in the plaint and the defence or averments of written statement would be of no relevance. Looking to the plaint averments at this stage, the contention of the defendant with regard to territorial jurisdiction cannot be gone into and answered without relevant materials on record. Therefore, to appreciate the contention of the defendant that the Courts at Bengaluru have no territorial jurisdiction, the trial would be necessary, where the defendant has to place necessary materials on record to establish that the Courts at Bengaluru have no territorial jurisdiction.
9. The next contention that the suit is bad for mis- joinder of Partners also cannot be gone into at this stage. It is one of the defence of the defendant. Partners of the firm are jointly and severally liable for the liabilities of the firm. The defendant has to place material on record with regard to their firm and its partners. As such, I am of the view that the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity, so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms