M/S VANDANA ENTERPRISES vs M/S PADAMSHREE INDUSTRIES & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26th May, 2025 + CM(M) 914/2025 & CM APPL. 29887/2025 M/S VANDANA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Anjeneya Mishra with Mr. Sahil and Mr. Nidish Gupta, Advocates. versus M/S PADAMSHREE INDUSTRIES & ANR .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has joined the proceedings through video conferencing. 2. The point raised in the present petition is very short and precise. 3. Petitioner has filed a suit for recovery and according to plaintiff, it even placed on record a copy of such registration certificate before the learned Trial Court. 4. However, when the case was at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, plaintiff neither submitted any list of witnesses nor examined any official from Registrar of Firm in order to substantiate that the firm in question was a registered one. 5. The case was, thereafter, fixed for defendant’s evidence and it was at that stage of the case, the plaintiff moved an application seeking examination of the concerned Official from the Registrar of Firm to prove the abovesaid fact. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 914/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:27.05.2025 16:35:07 6. It is noticed that while framing issues, the learned Trial Court has also framed a specific issue to the effect whether the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff is not a registered partnership firm. The onus, in this regard, has also been put on the petitioner/plaintiff. 7. No doubt, the plaintiff should have been careful and should have submitted list of witnesses and should have taken requisite steps to examine any such Official. However, that does not, automatically, mean that be