In a recent ruling by the learned Trial Court, a significant aspect of procedural law under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was addressed in the context of a commercial suit filed under Order 37. The petitioner, who is the defendant in this case, sought to challenge an order allowing the plaintiff to submit an additional document—a Partnership Registration Certificate—after the suit had been initiated.

The crux of the matter arose when the plaintiff submitted an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) and (5) of the CPC, requesting the inclusion of the certificate, which purportedly demonstrated the registration of his firm. The application was allowed on March 15, 2024. The defendant’s counsel contended that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification for not including this document with the original plaint, asserting that the Trial Court acknowledged this lack of explanation but still permitted the submission.

The plaintiff, in his application, claimed that the certificate was unavailable at the time of filing due to unforeseen circumstances, including the declaration of his business account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and internal disputes that led to the misplacement of crucial documents. Despite these assertions, the defendant argued that the document submitted did not confirm the firm’s registration under the Indian Partnership Act.

In evaluating the Trial Court’s decision, the court noted that the registration certificate was vital to determining the plaintiff’s legal standing to file the suit. The court emphasized that without this document, the suit could potentially be dismissed for being barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. The learned Trial Court had highlighted that the omission of the certificate might reflect a lack of proper legal counsel, and ultimately, the plaintiff stood to gain nothing by withholding the document.

Given that the case was still at an early stage, the court concluded that the Trial Court acted justly in allowing the inclusion of the certificate, as it was essential for the progression of the case. The ruling referenced the case of Puri Investments Versus Young Friends and Co. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 283) to underscore the appropriateness of exercising discretion in such matters.

In dismissing the petition, the court clarified that it had not adjudicated the validity of the registration itself and that the Trial Court would determine its relevance at a later stage. This decision highlights the balance courts must maintain between procedural adherence and the substantive rights of parties involved in litigation. 

  Indian Partnership Act, 1932