LexDOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR. versus PILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2191 : 2025 INSC 1046 Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2025) 26 August 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether Order XXX Rule 10 CPC in any manner debar a suit filed against the proprietor. Headnotes† 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 – * Author 2192 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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] Case Law Cited Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar and Another [1998] 5 SCC 567; Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2008] 10 SCR 905 : (2008) 8 SCC 536 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Proprietorship; Order XXX, Rule 10 of CPC; Order VII, Rule 11; Proprietorship concern cannot be equated either with a company or with a partnership firm. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRP No. 1679 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rao Vishwaja, P. Vamshi Rao, Ms. Tatini Basu. Advs. for the Respondents: S.S. Prasad, Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Advs., Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Rahul Reddy, Shivang Goel, Ishaan Aggarwal, Ojas Mittal, Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2193 Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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 are as follows: 3.1 Admittedly, the suit schedule property is in the ownership of the appellants. One Aditya Motors (the lessee), a sole proprietorship concern of Pilla Durga Prasad (P.D. Prasad) requested the appellant to lease out the same. Accordingly, under a registered lease deed dated 13th April, 2005, the schedule premises was leased out to Aditya Motors. Thereafter, it appears without the consent of the owner-appellant, Aditya Motors inducted M/s. Associated Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. 3.2 After the expiry of the lease period, the lessee did not vacate the premises.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.