N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1971 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of Rs. 75,000/- with costs along with interest pendente lite and future at the rate of six per cent per annum. The suit was instituted by the respondents on the allegations that the firm plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was a registered firm, that an agreement had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the Public Works Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government at Narora whereby the plaintiff firm was to carry out certain works in connection with the construction of a barrage on the river Ganga. The claim of the plaintiff-respondents was that the amount in respect of which the suit has been instituted was payable to them by the defendant-appellant in connection with the aforesaid work done by them. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on various grounds and on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as twelve issues. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective cases and on its perusal the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 75,000/- as already pointed out above. Indeed, the finding of the trial court is that on the basis of the material on record the plaintiff-respondents were entitled to a decree for Rs. 98,253.42 but the decree was passed for Rs. 75,000/- only inasmuch as the plaintiffs had paid court-fee only on that amount.
(2.) Sri O. P. Gupta holding the brief for the standing counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant has stated before us that he was challenging the findings of the trial court on issues 2, 8 and 10 only. In view of this categorical statement made by counsel for the appellant the findings of the trial court on other issues are not being considered and the decision of this appeal is being confined to the aforesaid three issues. For the sake of convenience these three issues are being reproduced below : - (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act? (8) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? (10) Whether the plaintiffs claim for recovery of lump sum of Rs, 75,000/- without specifying the items left by him is not maintainable?"
(3.) Coming to issue No. 2 it was urged by counsel for the appellant that on the plaintiffs' own case the agreement on the basis of which they carried out the work in respect of which the suit had been filed was entered into on 6th of March, 1964 as is clear from paragraph 29 of the plaint. This paragraph deals with the cause of action. It states that cause of action arose on 6th of March, 1964 when the agreement was executed and thereafter on 25th and 26th June, 1964 when the work in pursuance of the agreement was completed by the plaintiffs as also on 13th July, 1965 when notice in regard to their claim was served by the plaintiffs on the defendant and on 14th September, 1965 when the period of aforesaid notice, served on the defendant-appellant expired. It was also brought to our notice by counsel for the appellant with reference to Ex. 23, the certificate of registration granted by the Registrar of Firms to the plaintiff-respondents, that the said certificate was granted on 20th January, 1967. On the basis of these dates it was asserted that since the cause of action as stated in paragraph 29 of the plaint had arisen much before the firm was registered on 20th January, 1967, the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar created by Section 69 of the Partnership Act.;