JUDGMENT

KANIA, J. :— This is an appeal by Special Leave granted under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in First Appeal No. 152 of 1972, the judgment having been delivered on Dec. 12, 1972.

2. The appellants are a firm registered under the Partnership Act. 1932 and inter alia carry on the business of hire-purchase of automobile vehicles. The appellants were the owners of a diesel truck complete with tools and other accessories. On January 24, 1962 respondent No. 1 hired the said truck from the appellants under a Hire-Purchase Agreement in writing of the same date. Under the said agreement, respondent No. 1 agreed to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as initial hire charges and certain monthly hire charges. It was provided under the said agreement that on the payment of all the monthly hire charges and other amounts payable under the agreement on the respective due dates and fulfilment of the other terms and conditions of the agreement. respondent No. 1 would have the option to purchase the said truck. However, if any of the monthly hire charges were not paid or there was a breach of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the appellants were entitled to take possession of the truck. Until respondent No. 1 validly exercised the option to purchase the said truck, the said truck was to remain the property of the appellants. Respondent No. 2 is the guarantor. Respondent No. 1 failed to pay the monthly hire charges to the appellants as provided under the agreement. In fact, he paid only the initial hire of Rs. 10,000/- and hire charges for one month only. Giving up certain claims for damages and other items the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nagpur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,422.23p. against the respondents. Several issues were framed by the learned Trial Judge and they were all decided in favour of the appellants. However, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of S. 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The appellants preferred an appeal against this decision to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The said appeal was, however. dismissed by the High Court upholding the view of the learned Trial Judge regarding the non-maintainability of the suit. It is against this decision, that the present appeal is directed.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy before us. it is necessary to take note of a few further facts none of which is disputed.

4. The appellant-firm was registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 on Nov. 2, 1960. There was a change in the constitution of the firm on July 1, 1962 but we are not concerned with that change. What is material is that, on July 1, 1967, there was another change in the constitution of the firm whereby two of the then partners retired and one new partner, namely, Smt. Sarita Agarwal joined as a partner of the said firm; and two minors, namely. Ashish Kumar and Rohit Kumar were admitted to the benefits of the said partnership firm. On the said date, namely, July 1, 1967, two of the then partners, namely, Smt. Sheela R. Agarwal and Shri Ramkishan retired as aforestated from the said partnership firm. The suit was instituted on July 22, 1968. The notice regarding the change in the constitution of the said firm as aforesaid was given to the Registrar of Firms on Aug. 28, 1968 and a note was taken of the said change in the Register of Firms subsequently. Thus, as pointed out by the learned Trial Judge, on the date when the suit was filed. two partners shown as partners in the appellant-firm in the relevant entries in the Register of Firms had already retired, one new partner had joined the said firm and two minors had been admitted to the benefit of the said partnership firm and no notice had been given to the Registrar of Firms in respect of these changes. The notice regarding th