( 1 ) THE only question in this case is whether a suit which was not maintainable, under the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act at the time it was instituted because the firm was not registered, became maintainable at a later date when the firm was registered during the pendency of the suit.

( 2 ) THE suit was brought by two persons who are described as the owners of the firm Samanta Naskar and Co. On 8-6-1951, when the suit was instituted this firm had not been registered. It however was registered before the suit came to be heard. The learned Munsif relying on a decision of this Court in --'radha Charan Saha v. Matilal Sana', 41 Cal WN 534 (A), held that the suit was maintainable in spite of the fact that the firm was not registered on the date of institution of the suit and passed a decree in part in favour of the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) IT is contended before us that the decision in -- 41 Cal WN 534 (A)', was not correct.

( 4 ) THE first and second sub-sections of Section 69 of the Partnership Act are in these words:" (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 p