DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR. versus PILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.

DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR. versus PILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.

Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not bar a suit being filed against the proprietor; a proprietorship is only a trade name and not a juristic person, and where the proprietor is impleaded as representative of the proprietorship no prejudice is caused and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the proprietorship name was not separately made a party; accordingly the High Court erred in allowing the revision and rejecting the plaint.

Parties
Appellants: Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr.; Respondents: Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order in Revision (leave Granted)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order XXX Rule 10 CPC, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Proprietorship, Amendment of Plaint, Substitution of Parties/representative Party
Civil Procedure Property Law Order XXX Rule 10 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC Proprietorship Amendment of Plaint Substitution of Parties/representative Party

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr.

Appellants

Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order in Revision (leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order XXX Rule 10 CPC debarred a suit being filed against the proprietor where a proprietorship concern was impleaded or substituted
  2. 2 Whether amendment of plaint substituting the proprietor for the proprietorship defeated cause of action such that plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not bar a suit being filed against the proprietor; a proprietorship is only a trade name and not a juristic person, and where the proprietor is impleaded as representative of the proprietorship no prejudice is caused and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the proprietorship name was not separately made a party; accordingly the High Court erred in allowing the revision and rejecting the plaint.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order dated 19.10.2023 set aside
  • Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law to decide the suit on its merits