- (1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 2500/- was decreed by the trial court but has been dismissed in appeal.
(2.) The plaintiff-firm Sucha Singh & Company filed the present suit through its partner Sucha Singh for the recovery of Rs. 2100/- as principal and Rs. 400/- as interest thereon on the basis of a pronote and the receipt alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 30th December, 1970 and the rate of interest settled between the parties was Re. 1 per cent per month. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant, the claim of the plaintiff was denied in toto and it was pleaded inter alia that Sucha Singh was not competent to file the suit and that an amount of Rs. 622.23 was also due from the plaintiff-firm to the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the pronote dated 30th December, 1970 was executed by the defendant ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the said pronote was without consideration ? 3. Whether Sucha Singh is competent to file the suit ? 4. Whether the defendant is entitled to the adjustment of Rs. 622.23 ? 5. Whether the defendant is entitled to claim adjustment without payment of court-fee ? Under issue Nos. 1 and 2, the trial Court found that the defendant executed the pronote and the receipt on 30th December, 1970 for a consideration of Rs. 2100/-. Under issue No. 3, it was found that Sucha Singh, partner of the firm, was competent to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-firm. Under issue Nos. 4 and 5, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the claim of the defendant regarding the voucher in question is in the form of set off and consequently without paying court-fee on this amount, the defendant could not seek adjustment thereof. Ultimately the suit of the plaintiff-firm was decreed for Rs. 2500/- with costs and it was further ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover interest from the defendant at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 2100/- from the date of the suit till realisation.
(3.) In appeal filed on behalf of the defendant, he only contested the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3. The findings on the other issues were not contested. The lower appellate Court relying upon the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, came to the conclusion that Sucha Singh plaintiff was not competent to file the present suit because subsequent registration of the plaintiff-firm after the institution of the suit could not validate the proceedings. As a result of these findings, the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same the plaintiff has come up in second appeal in this court.;