Summary and Analysis of Dogiparthi Venkata Satish & Anr vs Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and restored the suit for trial on merits. The Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and that suing the proprietor directly is permissible and does not defeat the cause of action.

Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.25938 of 2023)
Supreme Court of India
Decided on August 26, 2025
Justices: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Citation:
(2025) INSC 1046

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Rejection of plaint.

• Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC – Suit against person carrying on business in a name other than his own.

• Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Notice for termination of lease.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellants: Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Another (Landlords)

• Respondents: Pilla Durga Prasad & Others (Tenant/Proprietor)

• Case History:
  Original Suit No. 118 of 2012 filed for eviction.
  Amendment application allowed: Proprietorship concern “Aditya Motors” deleted, proprietor Pilla Durga Prasad substituted.
  Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by respondent to reject the plaint – allowed by High Court.
  Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background Facts

The appellants owned a property leased to “Aditya Motors,” a sole proprietorship of Pilla Durga Prasad. After the lease expired, the tenant did not vacate. The landlords issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed a suit for eviction against the lessee (Aditya Motors) and others. During the suit, the appellants amended the plaint to replace “Aditya Motors” with “Pilla Durga Prasad” as the sole proprietor. The amendment was allowed and became final.

Later, the respondent (Pilla Durga Prasad) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the cause of action was against Aditya Motors, not against him personally. The Trial Court dismissed the application, but the High Court allowed the revision petition and rejected the plaint.

Legal Issue

Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because the proprietorship concern was deleted and the proprietor was substituted as a party.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

• A proprietorship concern is not a juristic entity. It is merely a trade name used by an individual to conduct business.

• Order XXX Rule 10 CPC permits a suit to be filed against a proprietorship in its trade name, but it does not prohibit suing the proprietor directly.

• The cause of action was always against Pilla Durga Prasad, as he was the sole proprietor and the signatory to the lease deed.

• The High Court erred in taking a hyper-technical view. No prejudice was caused to the respondent by substituting the proprietor in place of the trade name.

• The Court relied on precedents, including Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 567 and Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 536, which held that a proprietorship concern has no legal identity independent of its proprietor.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit on merits.