J. CHELAMESWAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29-2-1996 in Original Suit No. 52 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court Mahaboobnagar. Defendants 4 and 3 are the appellants herein respectively. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 and 3 herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The suit is filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,96,684. 42 ps. , being the balance of the unpaid price of the wool supplied by the plaintiff to the first appellant herein. The further details of the suit may not be necessary in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants which are purely questions of law. From the above, it goes without saying that the suit was decreed.

( 2 ) THE basic facts are not in dispute that the first respondent has supplied some quantity of wool of the first appellant herein; towards the price of which, certain amounts admittedly were paid by the first appellant herein to the first respondent herein. According to the first respondent the suit claim is still outstanding and is liable to be paid.

( 3 ) LEARNED senior counsel Sri J. V. Suryanarayana appearing for the appellants made 3 submissions : (1) the first respondent-plaintiff having been shown as a partnership firm, the first respondent must have necessarily pleaded and proved that the first respondent is a registered firm to maintain the present suit and in the absence of any such plea and proof, the suit itself is barred by Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act; (2) the suit is barred by virtue of the operation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1971 - more particularly under Section 4 (1) (a) (iv) of the said Act (3) that Ex. A8 is not an acknowledgement of the debt at all; but the Court-below erroneously considered it to be an acknowledgment of the debt owed by the first appellant herein which saved the limitation of the suit; but for which fact the suit would have been barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the objection of the bar under Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act was not raised in the Court-below and therefore the appellants should not be permitted to raise the same at this stage. Secondly he argued that the prohibition contained under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act 1971 extended only to the rights and obligations arising either from the laws mentioned in the II Schedule of the said Act or any other instrument emanating from such laws, but not the other obligation such as the one in question in the present case. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the document Ex. A8 is an acknowledgment of the debt on the part of the first appellant herein which saved the suit from the Law of Limitation.

( 5 ) WE shall first deal with the objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the prohibition contained under Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The said Section reads as follows :"no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. "

( 6 ) ELABORATING his first submission, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the first respondent-plaintiff is not shown to be a registered partnership firm and therefore the suit is barred. The learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in Sunderlal and Sons v. Y. N. Singh, AIR 1976 Cal 471 Justice Sabhyasachi Mukherjee, as he then was, dealt with the question in the context of the execution of a decree obtained by an unregistered firm. The question was whether such a decree should be executed. The learned Judge held that the decree it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document