1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd March, 1982 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Patna appointing a Receiver in the suit.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit impleading the defendants praying for the following reliefs:-

(a) That the partnership be wound up and a decree for dissolution of partnership be passed,

(b) In the event of the Court finding that the partnership had not been dissolved prior to the institution of the suit, it should now be dissolved and a decree for dissolution be passed in accordance therewith,

(c) A decree for a sum of Rs. 52,500.00 be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, and

(d) Interest pendente lite and future be awarded along with the cost of the suit. It has been stated in rite plaint that the parties to the suit entered into a partnership carrying on a business of eating house, restaurant, serving sweets, etc. under the name and style of "Vrindavan". It was housed in a portion of the building bearing Holding No. 334, Circle No. 6, Ward No. 2 of the Patna Municipal Corporation situate at Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. The agreement was entered into under a deed dated the 5th day of April, 1979. After the said agreement, the plaintiff disclosed his intention to remain out of the affairs of the partnership and a further agreement was entered into between the parties on the 20th April, 1979. This partnership deed provided, amongst others, as follows :-

"that the 4th party Sri Narain Das shill be entitled to get Rs. 2,000.00 per month only by way of fixed profit from the partnership and shall not be responsible for any loss and shall not be liable for any liability of the partnership business nor shall invest any capital for the business."

Clause 3 provided :

"The partners shall pay a sum of Rs. 500.00 only towards rent of the premises to Sri Narain Das for making payment to the owner of the premises and he sum so paid shall not be adjustable towards his monthly fixed profit of Rs. 2,000/-."

It was further alleged that the partners paid the amount as stipulated above for some time but stopped payment since April, 1980 and thus the total outstanding amount was Rs. 52,500/-. He claimed a decree for that amount.

3. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff filed a petition under O.40, R.1 of the Civil P.C. for appointment of a Receiver on the allegation that the books of the partnership firm are in possession of the defendants and it was apprehended that the defendants will either alter or do away with the books of the partnership firm and would realise money from the constituents and misappropriate the same. It was Submitted that it was necessary that the assets and liabilities of the business should be administered and discharged under the supervision of an independent person during the pendency of the suit. Notice of this application was given to the defendants and both the parties were heard on the question of appointment of the Receiver and an order, as referred to above, was passed. The defendants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal against the order of appointment of the Receiver.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit in the present form was hit by the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) (hereinafter referred to as the Partnership Act) and as such, prima facie, the plaintiff has no case and, therefore, this is not a fit case for appointment of a Receiver. Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act reads thus :

"69. (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.

(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of firm against any third