Bangalore District Court
M/S Deepak Pharma Agency vs Puttavenkatappa on 18 December, 2025
KABC170021222024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-85)
(Commercial Court)
THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
PRESENT:
SRI. ANAND T. CHAVAN. B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.)
LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.OS.No.1063/2024
Plaintiff:- M/s. Sri. Deepak Pharma Agency,
Shop No.6, Ground Floor, No.32 & 33,
Mezzanine Floor, Balaji Complex,
A-Block, Sultanpet, Bengaluru.
Rep by its Partner & Authorized
Signatory, Sri. P.R. Sivaraj,
S/o Late Ranganatham.
Aged about 49 years.
(Rep by Sri. K. Murulidhara -Adv)
V/s
Defendants:- 1. Sri. Puttavenkatappa,
Major, Father's name not known.
2 Com.OS.1063/2024
2. Smt. Lalitha,
Major, W/o Puttavenkatappa,
Both are Proprietors of
M/s Aavin Z Pharma,
R/at No.225, H-Gollahalli,
Chudenapura Post, KSR Layout,
Bengaluru South, Bengaluru-560 060.
(Rep by Sri. Jayaramaiah- Adv)
Date of Institution of the 03.08.2024
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on
pro note, suit for Suit for recovery of Money.
declaration & Possession,
Suit for injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of
21.07.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment
was pronounced 18.12.2025
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 04 15
LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3 Com.OS.1063/2024
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed present suit against defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.4,23,803/- together with accrued interest from due date and also to award further interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
2. The brief averments of plaint are that:
The plaintiff is a Partnership Firm. Defendants are Proprietors of M/s Aavin Z Pharma. Plaintiff and defendants are known each other from several years and defendants as a regular customer have purchased medical items from plaintiff as per GST invoices and they have also made payments as per ledger account. Subsequently defendants have purchased medical items worth Rs.7,00,953/- and they have made part payment of Rs.2,68,150/-. Defendants are in due of balance of amount Rs.4,32,803/- towards aforesaid goods. As per terms and conditions of GST invoice, defendants are liable to aforesaid balance amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, but they have not paid said 4 Com.OS.1063/2024 balance till the date of legal notice. Defendants have paid Rs.10,000/- after receiving legal notice and after deduction of the same, they are still liable to pay balance amount of Rs.4,23,803/- along with Rs.1000/- towards fees of DLSA incurred by plaintiff.
On repeated requests by plaintiff to pay outstanding amount, defendants have taken time and they have postponed the same for one or the other reason. Hence plaintiff got issued legal notice dtd.20.02.2024 calling upon defendants to pay the balance amount. In response to same, defendants have paid aforesaid part amount of Rs.10,000/-. However they have failed to pay outstanding amount. Thereafter plaintiff approached District Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru Urban for mediation by filing PIM No.1089/2024 on 29.04.2024. Despite appearance of defendants in said proceedings and despite sufficient opportunity, matter was not settled and said case was closed by concerned authority. Hence present suit and it is prayed to decree the same as prayed for.
5 Com.OS.1063/2024
3. The defendants have appeared in pursuant to summons and they have filed their common written statement, wherein its averred that, the suit is bad in law, utterly mischievous and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs have denied entire averments of plaint with regard to transactions between them and purchase of medical items worth Rs.7,00,953/- from plaintiff pharma. Defendants have also denied their liability to pay outstanding amount of Rs.4,32,803/- to plaintiff after making part payment of Rs.2,68,150/-, repeated demands said to have been made by plaintiff and issuance of legal notice as averred in plaint. Defendants have further denied payment of Rs.10,000/- by them to plaintiff after receiving of legal notice and alleged postponement of payment of balance amount by them despite service of legal notice. Defendants have admitted non settling of matter before DLSA in PIM No.1089/2024 despite sufficient opportunity. Apart from aforesaid denials, defendants have submitted that 2 nd defendant is Proprietorix of M/s Aavin Z Pharma and 6 Com.OS.1063/2024 1st defendant is not its Proprietor. Defendants further contended that, defendant No.2 has paid the amount for materials purchased by her in the name of M/s Aavin Z Pharma and there is no outstanding amount payable by defendants to plaintiff as claimed in the suit. It is further averred that plaintiff has filed present suit by creating false documents in order to harass them and they are not liable to pay any amount to them. It is further averred that the suit is barred by limitation, there is no cause of action to file the suit and plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. These amongst other grounds, defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, this court has framed following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are liable to pay sum of Rs.4,23,803/- towards supply of medical items by plaintiff as averred in para No.2 of plaint?
2. Whether defendants prove that 2 nd defendant has paid amount to 7 Com.OS.1063/2024 plaintiff towards purchase of materials in the name of M/s Aavin Z Pharma and there is no outstanding amount payable by them to plaintiff?
3. Whether suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?
5. What order or decree?
5. In support of its case, the partner and authorized signatory of plaintiff company has got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 13 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On the other hand defendants have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their contentions taken in written statement.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants. Perused evidence adduced by plaintiff.
7. The followings are answers to above:
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative. Issue No.2:- In the Negative.
8 Com.OS.1063/2024 Issue No.3:- In the Negative.
Issue No.4:- In the Negative.
Issue No.5:- As per the final Order for the following;
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 and 2:- These issues are taken together for consideration as finding on one issue may have bearing on finding on other issue and also in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence of case. The pleadings of both sides are already narrated in forgoing paras and same need not be repeated.
9. In support of its case, one of the Partner of plaintiff by name P.R Sivaraj S/o Late Ranganathan has got examined himself as PW1 and he has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating entire averments of plaint. PW1 has got marked a computer generated GST invoice raised in the name of M/s Aavin Z Pharma for Rs.4718/- dtd.13.03.2020 as per Ex.P1, Computer generated ledger copy of defendants showing alleged due of Rs.4,32,803/- from Avin Z Pharma as per Ex.P2, Office copy of legal 9 Com.OS.1063/2024 notice, its postal receipt and postal acknowledgment showing service of said notice on defendant No.2 as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P5, Non-starter report issued by DLSA, Bengaluru Urban in PIM No.1089/2024 as per Ex.P6, Certificate of PW1 under Sec.63 of BSA as per Ex.P7. In his further chief examination PW1 has got marked entire connected invoices raised in the name of M/s Aavin Z Pharma by plaintiff firm from 30.12.2019 to 10.09.2020 as per Ex.P8, Ledger accounts of Aavin Z Pharma for the year 2019-20 and 2020-21 and as per Ex.P9, Copy of intimation letters issued by Drug Control Department as per Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, another certificate under Sec.63 of BSA as per Ex.P12 and Bank Account statement of plaintiff firm showing entry dtd.05.04.2024 with regard to part payment of Rs.10,000/- from the account of one Darshan P Gowda of defendants. On the basis of aforesaid documents, the counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that, the above invoices and ledger sufficiently disclose the suit transaction between both parties and same are not 10 Com.OS.1063/2024 specifically disputed by other side and hence the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of aforesaid dues with interest as claimed for in the suit. He has further argued that, as per terms and conditions of aforesaid GST invoices, defendants have agreed to repay the outstanding amount with interest at the rate of 24% and accordingly the defendants are liable to pay the same.
10. However PW1 is subjected to elaborate cross examination by counsel for defendants, wherein PW1 has admitted that he is one of partner of plaintiff firm and he asserts that plaintiff firm is registered before Registrar of Partnership Firms. Further PW1 admits that he has no impediment to produce documents showing registration of said firm and he denies that plaintiff firm is not registered.
11. PW1 has further asserted that defendants have paid Rs.10,000/- by way of online transaction after issuance of notice and subsequently he has produced statement of account of plaintiff to show payment of said amount as per Ex.P13. PW1 has denied the 11 Com.OS.1063/2024 suggestion that, defendants have not paid said amount of Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff after issuance of notice. However nothing is produced before this Court to show the nexus between defendants and aforesaid depositor Darshan P Gowda to show that defendants themselves have deposited said amount as an acknowledgment of debt. PW1 further admits that as per Ex.P2 the last transaction between themselves and defendants was on 31.03.2021 and he has specifically denied that defendants have paid entire amount towards whatever they have purchased from their firm.
12. In his further cross examination, PW1 has testified that there are three partners to their firm including himself and he clearly admits that defendant No.2 is Proprietor of Aavin Z Pharma and defendant No.1 is not its Proprietor. However PW1 has volunteered that defendant No.1 himself used to come and collect the materials from plaintiff firm, which is denied by other side. PW1 further admits they have not received signatures of anybody on 12 Com.OS.1063/2024 invoices to show delivery of goods to defendants and further states that they have no such practice of obtaining signatures of customers.
13. PW1 has further denied that, there is no nexus between defendants and aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- paid on 05.04.2024 as per Ex.P13 and he has volunteered that, defendants themselves have transferred said amount to their firm. PW1 has further asserted that, he has produced permission issued by Drugs Control Department with regard to registration of plaintiff firm. PW1 has further denied suggestion that, though defendants are not in due of any amount to plaintiff firm, they have filed false case by creating the invoices produced in this case.
14. Thus, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff side, it shows that defendants do not deny and dispute supply of medical items by plaintiff firm, but they assert that they have repaid the entire amount towards supply of such goods. Under such circumstances the contrary 13 Com.OS.1063/2024 stand taken by defendants that plaintiff has filed this false suit by creating documents cannot be accepted. Further despite taking such contentions of creation of documents, defendants have not chosen to adduce any evidence in order to prove that the documents produced by plaintiff are created and fabricated. If really plaintiff had created such invoices, defendants could have definitely initiated suitable action against plaintiff firm. In the absence of cogent evidence, it is difficult to believe that plaintiff has created and concocted the aforesaid documents for the purpose of this suit.
15. Hence aforesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff sufficiently disclose supply of aforesaid materials to defendant No.2, who is said to be Proprietor of Aavin Z Pharma. However the materials elicited in cross examination of PW1 sufficiently disclose that, defendant No.1 is not related to aforesaid Pharma and as such no liability can be fastened against said defendant for above transactions. Further as already stated above except 14 Com.OS.1063/2024 denying the aforesaid documents, defendant has not taken any steps nor lead any evidence to prove that they have paid the amount towards purchase of materials to plaintiff firm. For these reasons, plaintiff has sufficiently proved that defendants are liable to pay aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.4,23,803/- towards supply of medical items and on the other defendants have failed to prove that they have paid the entire amount to plaintiffs. Hence Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 is answered in the Negative.
16. Issue No.3:- Defendants have taken specific contentions in their written statement that, the suit is barred by limitation. On perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.P8 GST invoices raised by plaintiff on defendants Aavin Z Pharm, the same pertains period between 30.12.2019 to 10.09.2020. The present suit is filed on 03.08.2024. Though plaintiff has asserted that, defendants have made part payment of Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff on 05.04.2024 as reflected in Ex.P13 bank account statement, the said payment has been 15 Com.OS.1063/2024 seriously denied and disputed by defendants. However as already stated above the said entry shows that, the above amount has been transferred by one Darshan P Gowda and nothing is explained by plaintiff as to how said person relates to defendants and to the suit transaction. Hence said document does not help plaintiff to prove payment of part amount of suit claim by defendants by way of acknowledgment of debt as per Sec.19 of Limitation Act.
17. However admittedly the above invoices are generated in between 30.12.2019 to 10.09.2020. Moreover, Ex.P6 Non-starter report shows that, plaintiff approached the DLSA, Bengaluru Urban on 29.04.2024 and the said PIM No.1089/2024 was closed on 06.07.2024.
18. Sub section 3 of Sec.12(A) of Commercial Courts Act provides that period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation, shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act,. Hence on 16 Com.OS.1063/2024 considering Ex.P 6 Non starter report produced by plaintiff, the period between 29.04.2024 to 06.07.2024 (2 months 7 days) has to be deducted from the period of limitation.
19. Further as per Order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo- motu Writ Petition No.3/2020 C/w Misc.No.21/2022 and Misc. Application No.660/2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following observation during covid pandemic and exempted the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing the periods prescribed under general and special loss in respect of judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. The relevant portion of judgment is culled out as under.
5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period 17 Com.OS.1063/2024 from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12Aof the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
18 Com.OS.1063/2024
20. Hence in view of aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 also stands excluded for the purpose of limitation. Apart from it, period of 2 months and 7 days spent before pre-institution mediation center is also excluded from period of limitation for filing this suit. Hence on considering the above aspects, at this stage, it shows that the present suit is filed on 03.08.2024 is well within the time of limitation. For these reasons absolutely there is no reason to believe that, the suit is barred by limitation as asserted by defendant. Accordingly Issue No.3 is answered in the Negative.
21. Issue No.4:- plaintiff has sufficiently proved that defendants are liable to pay aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.4,23,803/- towards supply of medical items and on the other defendants have failed to prove that they have paid the entire amount to plaintiffs. Defendants have also failed to prove that documents produced by plaintiff are created one and the suit is barred by time.
19 Com.OS.1063/2024
22. However counsel for defendants have vehemently argued that, the plaintiff is an unregistered Partnership Firm and the suit is hit by Section 69(2) of Partnership Act. Further the counsel for defendants has relied upon cross examination of PW1, wherein though PW1 has repeatedly asserted that, the plaintiff firm is registered and he would produce relevant documents of registration of said firm, he has not produced any cogent documents showing registration of said firm. Further though PW1 has relied upon Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 intimation letters said to have been issued by Drugs Control Department, same cannot be construed as document of registration of firm of plaintiff. Hence it is crystal clear that despite serious contention by defendants that plaintiff firm is not registered, absolutely no cogent documents are produced by plaintiff to show registration of said firm. It is necessary to consider Sec.69 of Partnership Act, which reads thus:-
Sec.69. Effect of non-registration:-
(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be institutes 20 Com.OS.1063/2024 in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.
(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect:-
(a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or
(b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (2 of 1909), or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), to realise the property of an insolvent partner.
(4) This section shall not apply:-
(a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in the territories to which this Act extends, or whose places of business in the said territories are situated in areas to which, by notification under section 56, this Chapter does not apply, or 21 Com.OS.1063/2024
(b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882), or, outside the Presidency- owns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim.
23. Hence aforesaid Sec.69(2) of Partnership Act mandates registration of Partnership Firm in order to institute any suit before any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party. Further the counsel for defendants has relied upon following case laws and relevant portions are culled out as under:-
(2025) 1 SCR 902 between Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors., V/s Penki Aruna Kumari. (Hon'ble Supreme Court) "15. It is a clear as a noon day that the present suit had not been instituted by or on behalf of the firm against any third persons so as to fall under the ambit of Section 69(2). The petitioners have also not filed the instant suit for enforcing any statutory right conferred under any other law or a common law right so as to exempt the application of Section 69. Hence, the 22 Com.OS.1063/2024 rigours of Section 69(1) would apply on such a suit and the partnership firm being unregistered would prevent the petitioners from filing a bare suit for recovery of money from the respondent."
Hon'ble High Court Judicature at Madras in SA No.139 of 2024 between The Chennai Law Firm V/s Reyvish Associates (P) Ltd., "9. Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act talks about the registration of the firms and the effect of the non-registration of a firm that seeks to enforce the right arising from a contract. Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act would read as follows;
"No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm"
A reading of the above Section would clearly show that no suit can be instituted by or on behalf of an unregistered firm to enforce any right arising from a contract against the 3rd party unless a firm is registered and the persons suing are shown as partners."
SLP (Civil) Dairy No.57293/2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court between The Chennai Law Firm V/s Reyvish Associates (P) Ltd., (which is preferred by the Chennai Law firm against aforesaid Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras) "3. We see no reason to take a different view than that of the High Court, in view of Section 69(2) of 23 Com.OS.1063/2024 the Partnership Act, 1932. The other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, based upon provisions of the Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1988, cannot be entertained as no legal practitioner, juristic or otherwise, was the plaintiff before the civil court.
4. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
24. Hence from aforesaid cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Judicature Madras, it clearly shows that, in view of failure of plaintiff to produce documents showing registration of said firm, it is not entitled to file present suit against defendants seeking recovery of outstanding amount and the very suit is not maintainable as per aforesaid provisions. Hence though plaintiff has sufficiently proved the suit transaction and liability of defendant No.2 to pay the suit claim as per Issue No.1 and 2, it is not entitled for relief of recovery of suit amount as an unregistered Partnership Firm. For these reasons, Issue No.4 is answered in the Negative.
25. Issue No.5:- For the reasons stated and finding given on Issue Nos.1 to 4, following is;
24 Com.OS.1063/2024 ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Under facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to send soft copies of the judgment to the e-mail Id's of the both parties U.Or.XX Rule 1 CPC, if e-mail Id's are furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 18th day of December 2025] Digitally signed by ANAND T ANAND T CHAVAN CHAVAN Date: 2025.12.23 10:53:26 +0530 (ANAND T. CHAVAN) LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW.1 P.R Sivaraj 25 Com.OS.1063/2024 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P1 Computer generated copy of GST invoice. Ex.P2 Computer generated copy of ledger of defendant. Ex.P3 Office copy of legal notice dtd.20.02.2024.
Ex.P4 Postal receipt.
Postal acknowledgment showing service legal Ex.P5 notice on defendant No.2.
Non-starter report issued by DLSA, Bengaluru Ex.P6 Urban in PIM No.1089/2024.
Ex.P7 Certificate under Sec.63 of BSA.
Ex.P8 53 GST invoices. Ex.P9 Ledger account of the year 2019-20 & 2020-21.
Ex.P10 & Copy of Intimation Letter issued by Drug Control Ex.P11 Department to run plaintiff firm. Ex.P12 Certificate under Sec.63 of BSA, 2023. Ex.P13 Account Statement of plaintiff firm.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
- Nil-
26 Com.OS.1063/2024 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
-Nil-
Digitally signed by ANAND T ANAND T
CHAVAN
CHAVAN Date: 2025.12.23
10:53:31 +0530
(ANAND T. CHAVAN)
LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
27 Com.OS.1063/2024 @@@@@@