G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who are third parties filed a petition before the lower Court under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 C. P. C. to implead them as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The learned District Munsif declined to grant permission to the petitioners to come on record on the ground that they have no locus standi to file the petition. Aggrieved against the said older of the learned District Munsif, the petitioners-third parties have filed the present revision petition.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed for recovery of certain amount on the basis of Khata by Ms/. Pattabhi Enterprises against the respondents {herein. The petitioners case is that they are blood relations, 1st petitioner being the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 being the sons of A. Pattabhirama Rao who filed the suit as Managing Partner of Pattabhi Enterprises, that they are also the partners of the said firm along with Pattabhirama Rao and therefore they are also entitled to the amount. The petition was resisted by the defendents on the ground that the firm was not registered by the date of filing of the suit and its subsequent registration will not cure the defect and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY the suit was filed by the Firm which was not registered at the time of filing the suit. But during the pendency of the suit, the firm was registered. The Court below considered the point and found that subsequent registration will not enure to the benefit of the third parties to contend that they are also entitled to come on record and the-suit can be proceeded with, without their being impleaded as plaintiffs.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit is defective for non-registration of the Firm at the time of " filing the suit and an issue was also framed with regard to the registration of the firm and the validity of the plaint and the same has not been decided in the petition, and they are entitled to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5.

( 5 ) THE Gauhati High Court in Union of India vs. Durga Dutti considering Section 69 (1) and (2) of the Partnership Act, held:"section 69 (2) in terms prohibits the institution of the suit by a firm without registration. The words in Sec. 69 (5) are mandatory and the suit instituted without obtaining registration of the firm is void and cannot be proceeded with. The subsequent registration of the firm will not valid to the institution of the suit. Nor can the suit be deemed to have commenced on the date when the registration has been obtained. "

( 6 ) THE short point for consideration in this revision petition is when a partnership firm has filed a suit without registration and when the registration took place during the pendency of the suit, the suit that has been instituted can be allowed to be proceeded with or not.

( 7 ) IT is true that on the date when the suit is filed, the firm was not registered. As early as in 1937 the Madras High Court had occasion to consider a similar question in Varadarajulu vs. Rajamanika wherein considering Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, the learned Judge held :"i agree with Mr. Krishnaswami Iyer that the case of the plaintiff is not as strong as in the case just quoted, for Section 69 (2) Partnership act, embodies a principle of public policy intended to penalise partnerssips which do not register. However, when the registration has been carried out, the requirements of the Legislature are fulfilled and there is no reason in equity why from the moment of registration a suit previously filed should not be allowed to go on. This suit is not of course one in which the subsequent act of registration validated the plaint from the date of its being filed ; for no suit was maintainable before the date of registration. The most that the plaintiff can ask for is that his plaint should be treated as a valid one from the date of registration. A very sim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document