Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2025-08-26 allowed

Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr vs Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors

Bench: 2 — Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

In Brief

The appellants owned property leased to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship of Pilla Durga Prasad. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate and inducted a third party company without consent. The appellants sued for eviction and later amended the plaint to substitute the proprietor (Pilla Durga Prasad) for the proprietorship concern. The High Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the proprietorship should have been sued. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that Order XXX Rule 10 CPC merely enables—not mandates—suing a proprietorship concern. Since the proprietor is the real party and sole owner, impleading him as defendant is sufficient and discloses a valid cause of action. The Court remitted the case for trial on merits."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Pleadings and Amendments Partnership and Proprietorship Eviction Property Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login