NAND KISHORE OWNER OF THE FIRM RAM PRASHAD RAM KUWAR Vs. FIRM MAHESHWARI MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed by the Defendant in a suit instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Morena, against him by the Plaintiff Mills. It appears that the Plaintiff's firm was not registered when the suit was instituted but was registered after the presentation of the plaint in Morena Court. The Defendant applicant resisted the suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable; but the plea of the Plaintiff was that this subsequent registration of the partnership was enough to enable the Plaintiff to maintain the suit, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 69(2), Partnership Act. The Court upheld the Plaintiff's plea observing that Section 69(2) had no application in this case and relying on - 'Nazir Ahmed v. People's Bank of North India Ltd.', AIR 1942 Lah 289 (FB) held that subsequent registration validated proceedings. The Defendant has come to this Court and desires me to revise this order.

(2.) THERE is no doubt that in Full Bench case of - 'Nazir Ahmed v. People's Bank of North India Ltd.', ILR (1942) Lah 517 :, AIR 1942 Lah 289 (FB) and also in three other cases viz.; - 'Jakiuddin v. Vithoba' : AIR 1939 Nag 301:, 186 Ind. Cas. 670; - 'Radha Charan v. Matilal', 41 Cal WN 534 and 'Varadarajulu Naidu v. Rajamanika Mudaliar' : AIR 1937 Mad 767 : 1937 2 MLJ 273 the view that prevailed was in favour of the Plaintiff non -applicant. It was held that subsequent registration cured the defect and the suit was maintainable. On the other hand, in - 'Subramania Mudaliar v. East Asiatic Co. Ltd.' : AIR 1936 Mad 991, in 1953 - 'Ibrahim Saheb and Brother v. Gurulinga Aiyer' : AIR 1938 Mad 185; in - 'Girdharilal Son and Co. v. Kappini Gowder' : AIR 1938 Mad 688 it was held that subsequent registration did hot remedy the defect. The views of the Patna High Court - 'Laluram Sagarmal Firm v. Jamuna Prasad', 18 Pat 114, the Allahabad High Court - 'Danmal Parshotam Das v. Babu Ram Chhote Lal', 58 Ail 495 and the Lahore High Court - 'Krishen Lal Ram Lal v. Abdul Ghafur Khan', 17 Lah 275 were also to this effect.

(3.) A plain reading of the terms above, without anything more, shows clearly that unless the firm is registered, the institution of the suit on its behalf to enforce a right arising from a contract will be barred.