Delhi High Court
Ankit Bansal vs S. Paramjeet Singh Khurana on 26 March, 2025
$~69 & 71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26th March, 2025
+ CM(M) 546/2025 & CM APPL. 17260-17261/2025
ANKIT BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate
versus
S. PARAMJEET SINGH KHURANA .....Respondent
Through: Advocate (Appearance not given)
+ CM(M) 3573/2024 & CM APPL. 5950/2025
ANKIT BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate
versus
S. PARAMJEET SINGH KHURANA .....Respondent
Through: Advocate (Appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Both the aforesaid petitions emanate from the same suit and have been
filed by the defendant.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions
have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
3. The following issues, as amended by order dated 23.08.2024, were
framed by the learned Trial Court: -
1. Whether the firm M/s. Video Voice INC has been dissolved as per
law? If yes, then whether accounts were settled after rendition of
accounts between the parties? OPD
Digitally Signed CM(M) 546/2025 & CM(M) 3573/2024 1
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,03,15,022
inclusive of interest upto 31.5.2020?/- (OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest. If yes at what
rate?(OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction
retraining D-1 from creating third party rights in respect of capital
of Mis Video voice INC? (OPP)
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration in respect
of personal assets of D-1 to D-3 and an order of permanent
injunction retraining them from creating third party rights in
respect of their movable and immovable assets? (OPP)
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for costs of the suit? (OPP)
7. Relief"
4. The grievance of the defendant is that the onus with respect to issue no.
1 above could not have been fastened upon him alone and such onus has to be
discharged by both the sides.
5. Learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent herein submits that he would
have no objection if the onus in this regard is put on both the parties.
6. Accordingly, the onus to prove the abovesaid Issue No. 1 would be on
both the parties.
7. It is also admitted fact that when the aforesaid suit was pending
adjudication, defendant had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC and his sole legal contention was that the suit was barred by law as the
partnership firm in question was unregistered one and, therefore, suit was
barred in terms of Section 69(3) of Indian Partnership Act.
8. Such contention was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order
dated 14.02.2023 and while dismissing the aforesaid application, learned Trial
Court had also observed that for deciding any such application under Order
Digitally Signed CM(M) 546/2025 & CM(M) 3573/2024 2
VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint and the documents relied
upon by the plaintiff were to be seen and not the defence raised by the
defendant. Undoubtedly, though the aforesaid order has attained finality as
the revision petition filed by the defendant was also dismissed by this Court,
since the decision with respect to the aforesaid aspect was taken at a
preliminary stage while confining to the averments made in the plaint and the
documents of the plaintiff, no prejudice would be caused if additional issue, to
the following effect, is also framed: -
"Whether the present suit is barred under Section 69(3) Indian Partnership
Act? OPD"
9. Learned counsel for defendant has, in all fairness, submitted that he
does not press that the aforesaid additional issue be treated as a preliminary
issue. Learned counsel for plaintiff has also no objection to abovesaid
additional issue.
10. The abovesaid additional issue shall be numbered as Issue No. 1(A) and
be adjudicated by learned Trial Court, at the time of final disposal, in
accordance with law.
11. Both the aforesaid petitions stand disposed in the aforesaid terms.
12. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
13. Next date of hearing i.e. 07.07.2025 stands cancelled.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 26, 2025/dr/pb
Digitally Signed CM(M) 546/2025 & CM(M) 3573/2024 3
