P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the order of Banerjee, J. dismissing the appellant's application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Registrar of Firms and one Manickchand Sarawagi.
(2.) The dispute relates to a firm of partnership by the name Ramballabh Rameswar. On receiving a notice from respondent Manickchand Sarawagi dated 30th August, 1961 under Section 63 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act, the Registrar of Firms ex parte without giving any notice to the appellants and who are She other contending partners, dissolved the firm by entering the word dissolved' in the Register. The alleged notice of dissolution signed by the respondent Manickchand on which this extraordinary step was taken by the Registrar of Firms is in these following terms; "To The Registrar of Firms. West Bengal. Calcutta. Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, that the firm Ramballabh Rameswar, 19, Nurmal Lohia Lane, Calcutta was dissolved on April 11, 1954. (Number of the firm on the Register --19655.) Manickchand Sarawagi Signature of any partner or his agent. Date August 30, 1981."
(3.) Banerjee, J. in dismissing this application referred to a suit in this Court being Suit No. 645 of 1958 between the appellants here and the representatives and heirs of another deceased partner by the name Ram Kumar Khatuwalla and the Judgment delivered by A.N. Ray. J. in that suit. That judgment is under appeal before us. Banerjee, J. also referred to the petitioners' own statement that the firm had been dissolved and which statement was made in that suit. On that point also there is an application for amendment of the plaint by the petitioners which is also before us. The reason for which Banerjee, J. dismissed the appellants' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may be stated in his Lordship's own words: "The question, whether the firm was dissolved on April 11, 1954 appears to be a disputed question of fact and it is impossible for me in this Rule to come to a conclusion, without more, which is the true version, namely, whether the firm was dissolved on April 11, 1954 or was still continuing. That being the position I am disinclined to interfere with the entry made by the Registrar in this Rule.";