K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.—The plaintiff in O.S. 171/92 on the file of the Munsif’s Court, Chavakkad is the appellant in this C.M.A.. The Judgment passed by the District Court, Thrissur in A.S. 215/93 is under challenge.

2. The appellant filed the above suit for realisation of Rs. 6,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the defendant-respondents herein alleging to be due as per the promissory note alleged to have executed by them in favour of the appellant.

3. The 1st defendant-1st respondent herein contended that the appellant is not a registered partnership firm and the person who verified and signed the plaint is not competent to do so. He also denied the execution of the promissory note and receipt of any amount from the appellant.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. The defendant-respondents took up the matter in appeal before the District Court, Thrissur in A.S. 215/93. The lower Appellate Court found that the contention of the respondents that the suit is not maintainable under Section 69 of the Partnership Act is not tenable. The lower Appellate Court further found that since the respondents denied the execution of the promissory