Factual Background and Procedural History
The Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.25938 of 2023), Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors., dated August 26, 2025, settles a crucial procedural question regarding suits involving sole proprietorships.
The appellants (landlords) owned a property that was leased out under a registered lease deed to “Aditya Motors”. Aditya Motors was a sole proprietorship concern, with Pilla Durga Prasad (the respondent) as its sole proprietor. After the lease period expired, the lessee failed to vacate the premises.
The appellants filed a suit for eviction, initially impleading “Aditya Motors” as defendant no.1, along with a sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants filed an application to amend the plaint. The amendment sought to delete “Aditya Motors” as defendant no.1 and substitute it with “Pilla Durga Prasad” as the representative of the lessee. This amendment was allowed by the court and, not being challenged, attained finality.
Subsequently, the respondent (Pilla Durga Prasad) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court dismissed this application, but the High Court, in a Civil Revision Petition, allowed it. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and rejected the plaint. This appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the High Court’s order of rejection.
Identification of Legal Issues
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the plaintiff amends the cause title to replace the trade name of a sole proprietorship (which was a party to the registered lease) with the name of the sole proprietor himself.
- In essence, the Court had to determine if the substitution of the proprietor for the proprietorship’s trade name extinguishes the cause of action, and how Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is to be interpreted in this context.
Arguments of the Parties
- Respondent’s Contention (Defendant): The respondent’s plea for rejection (under Order VII Rule 11) was based on the argument that the registered lease deed was executed with “Aditya Motors”. Since “Aditya Motors” had been deleted from the plaint, and Pilla Durga Prasad was substituted, the plaint no longer disclosed any cause of action against the substituted defendant.
- Appellants’ Contention (Plaintiff): The appellants argued that “Aditya Motors” was merely a proprietorship concern, not a juristic person. Pilla Durga Prasad was its sole proprietor. They contended that the cause of action was always against the proprietor, who was the signatory to the registered lease deed and the “real party” to the dispute.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had “committed serious error” by relying on Order XXX Rule 10 CPC to reject the plaint. The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the fundamental legal nature of a proprietorship.
A Proprietorship is Not a Juristic Person
The Court reiterated the established legal principle that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person. Unlike a company, it has no separate legal identity from its owner. It is simply a “business name” or “trade name” that an individual uses to carry on their business.
Interpretation of Order XXX Rule 10, CPC
The High Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of Order XXX Rule 10. The Supreme Court, however, clarified the true import of this provision.
- An Enabling Provision: The Court held that Order XXX Rule 10 is an enabling provision. It carves out an exception to the general rule, allowing a proprietorship (which is not a legal entity) to be sued in its trade name. This is a matter of procedural convenience.
- Not a Bar on Suing the Proprietor: The Court emphasized that this provision “does not in any manner debar a suit being filed against the proprietor” directly. The use of the word “may” (or “can” as used in the judgment) in the rule signifies that it is an option, not a mandatory requirement.
The “Real Party” in Interest
The core of the judgment rests on identifying the “real party” to the suit. The Court held:
- A proprietorship concern must be defended by the proprietor and only the proprietor.
- Therefore, whether the suit is filed against the proprietorship by its trade name or against the proprietor “is one of the same thing”.
- Impleading the proprietor directly causes “no prejudice”. Instead, it ensures the interests of the business are “well protected and taken care of by the only and only person, who owns the proprietorship”.
- The High Court’s view was “completely hyper technical,” especially since the proprietor (Pilla Durga Prasad) had himself signed the lease deed on behalf of the concern.
Reliance on Precedent
The Court’s analysis was supported by established precedent:
- Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar (1998): The Court relied on this case to affirm that a “proprietary concern is only the business name”. A suit against such a concern is, in reality, a “suit by or against the proprietor of the business”. Order XXX Rule 10 is merely enabling, and the “real party who is being sued is the proprietor”.
- Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008): This case was cited to reinforce that in any proceeding involving a proprietary concern, the proprietor “remains the real party in interest”.
Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the plaint. Substituting the proprietor’s name for the trade name did not extinguish the cause of action; it merely corrected the cause title to reflect the “real party” in interest.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Trial Court (which had rejected the Order VII Rule 11 application) was restored. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit on its merits.
FAQs:
1. What is the difference between a proprietorship and a company in a lawsuit?
A company (like a Pvt. Ltd. or Ltd.) is a “juristic person,” meaning it has its own legal identity separate from its owners. It can sue and be sued in its own name. A proprietorship is just a business name for a single individual owner. It is not a separate legal entity, so the law sees the owner and the business as one and the same.
2. If I have a dispute with a proprietorship, who do I sue—the business name or the owner?
You are actually suing the owner (the proprietor). While a procedural rule (Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC) allows you to file a suit against the business in its trade name as a convenience, the “real party” to the suit is the proprietor. As this judgment confirms, suing the proprietor directly is perfectly valid and, in many ways, more accurate.
3. What does it mean that a proprietorship is “not a juristic person”?
A “juristic person” is any entity that the law recognizes as having the rights and responsibilities of a person, such as the ability to own property, enter contracts, sue, and be sued. Companies, trusts, and universities are examples. A proprietorship is not on this list; it is simply the “style” or “trade name” under which an individual conducts business.
4. What is Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC?
This is a special procedural rule that enables a person to file a suit against someone who is “carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name”. It allows the suit to be filed in that business name (like a proprietorship’s trade name) “as if it were a firm name”. This judgment clarifies it’s an option for convenience and does not prevent a suit from being filed directly against the proprietor.
5. Can a proprietorship file a lawsuit against me?
No. A proprietorship cannot file a suit in its own business name because it is not a legal person. The lawsuit must be filed by the proprietor (the owner) in their own personal name.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.