A suit by a partner of an unregistered firm is void under Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act and a plaint filed in infringement of Section 69(1) and (2) is a void plaint and the court has no jurisdiction to grant any amendment of such a plaint.

( 1 ) THIS application under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. filed at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against Order No. 108 dt. Nov. 19, 1984 of the learned Assistant District Judge, Bankura passed by him in Title Suit No. 34 of 1973.

( 2 ) THE said suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is a partner of a partnership firm having one-fourth share therein and carrying on business of the husking mill in question. He has also prayed for appointment of a Commissioner for accounts and for other incidental reliefs.

( 3 ) THE defendants opposite parties entered appearance in the suit and contested the same by filing a written statement. It was inter alia contended by them that the husking mill in question was owned and possessed by the opposite party 1, and the petitioner and the opposite parties 2 and 3 had no right, title and interest in the said husking mill business.

( 4 ) WHILE arguments were being advanced by the parties at the first hearing of the suit, the defendant opposite party 1 filed an application under O. 6, R. 17 of the Civil P. C, praying for amendment of the written statement for incorporating therein a statement to the effect that the so-called firm not having been registered, the suit was not maintainable at all and was liable to be dismissed under the provision of S. 69 (1) of the Partnership Act. The said application of the opposite party No. 1 was allowed by the learned Assistant District Judge.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner also filed an application under O. 6, R. 17 of Civil P. C, praying for amendment of the plaint for the deletion of the prayer for declaration and for inclusion of a prayer for dissolution of the alleged partnership firm. The learned Assistant District Judge disallowed the said prayer for amendment of the plaint as the alleged firm was not registered as required under S. 69 (1) of the Partnership Act. Hence this revisional application.

( 6 ) THE only question involved in this application is whether the learned Assistant District Judge was justified in refusing amendment of the plaint, as prayed for by the plaintiff petitioner. Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that S. 69 (1) of the Partnership Act does not stand in the way of the Court in allowing the amendment, as prayed for by the petitioner. It is contended that the amendment should have been allowed in view of sub-sec. (3) of S. 69 of the said Act. At this stage, we may refer to the provisions of sub-secs. (1), (2) and (3) of S. 69 of the Partnership Act, which provide as follows :"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 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. (3) The provisions of sub-secs. (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect - (a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or (b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to realise the property of an insolvent partner. "

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that sub-sec. (1) of S. 69 of the Act puts an embargo on the party and not on the Court and, as such, there was no impedi