Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. vs Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

26 August 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

Citation

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2191 : 2025 INSC 1046

Acts & Sections

CPC TP Act

Issue for consideration

Whether Order XXX Rule 10 CPC in any manner debar a suit filed against the proprietor.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXX, R.10 and Or. VII, R.11 – Appellant filed a suit for eviction – Defendant no.1 was Aditya Motors (the lessee), a sole proprietorship concern of PDP – An application was filed by appellant u/Or. VI, R.17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint – One of the amendments sought was that the lessee-defendant no.1 be deleted and, in its place, PDP be substituted as representative of the lessee – Amendment was allowed – After the amendment, the defendant moved an application u/Or. VII, R.11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that since the plaint had been amended and Aditya Motors has been deleted and in its place PDP has been substituted, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against PDP – Trial Court rejected the application u/Or. VII, R.11 CPC – However, the High Court by the impugned order has allowed the revision merely relying upon the provisions contained in Or. XXX Rule 10 CPC – Correctness:

Held: 1. The Trial Court was right in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The High Court committed serious error in relying upon Order XXX Rule 10 CPC. [Para 4]

2. The use of the word can in Order XXX Rule 10 CPC only indicates that proprietorship concern may be made a party – However, it does not necessarily mean that the proprietor itself if made a party would not be enough, inasmuch as, the proprietorship is to be defended by the proprietor only and not by anybody else – Once the proprietor has been impleaded as a party representing the proprietorship, no prejudice is caused to rather its interest is well protected and taken care of by the only and only person, who owns the proprietorship – Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed against the proprietor. [Para 4.2]

Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2023 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, whereby the Civil Revision Petition No.1679 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed. The order passed by the Trial Court dated 2nd July, 2018 was set aside, and further the application I.A. No.429 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, was allowed and the plaint of Original Suit No.118 of 2012 was rejected. 3. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal ar

View Subscription Plans →