( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) IN order to show that this entry birds defendant No. 4 reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant on sec. 32 (3) and 45 (i) of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 which read as under:

( 3 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the retirement of a partner from a firm he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retire- ment until public notice is given of the retirement: provided that a retired partner is not liable to any third party who deals with the firm without knowing that he was a partner. (4) Notice under sub-sec. (3) may be given by the retired partner or by any partner of the reconstituted firm.

( 4 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the dissolution of a firm the partners continue to be liable as such to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the dissolution until public notice is given of the dissolution:provided that the estate of a partner who dies or who is adjudicated an insol- vent or of a partner who not having been known to the person dealing with the firm to be a partner retires from the firm is not liable under this section for acts done after the date on which he ceases to be a partner. (2) Notices under sub-sec. (i) may be given by any partner. Now the present case is not of retirement of a partner from a firm leaving the firm to continue as a firm. This is a case where the firm consisted of two partners only and as Ex. 143 shows the firm was diss- olved. Therefore the appropriate section applicable would be sec. 45 (1) and not sec. 32 (3 ). The language of these two provisions is very similar. The evidence on record shows that on May 9 1963 when the Hawala agreement took place the plaintiff firm was told that the defendant firm is being dissolved. In fact Natvarlal Shanabhai admitted in his evidence at Ex. 121 that he came to know on the date of the Havalas that defen- dant No. 1 firm was dissolved. Now the said firm was dissolved on 9th July 1962 and the aforesaid evidence of Natverlal Shanabhai Patel who is the son of one of the partners and who took active part in the Havala agreement shows that on 9th May 1963 he came to know about dissolution of defendant No. 1 firm. The debit entry on which reliance is placed was made thereafter i. e. on May 20 1963 On that day plain- tiff was very well aware that defendant No. 1 firm was dissolved. Thus the act of making that debit entry by a partner of defendant No. 1 Firm was done after the creditor (plaintiff) had actual notice of dissolution of this firm. Can such an act bind defendant No. 4 and operate to save limitation against him is the question which arises for determination. The evidence also shows that no public notice as contemplated by sec. 45 (i) read with sec. 72 of the Indian Partnership Act was given about dissolu- tion. We therefore proceed to examine the question on the basis that no public notice was given but the creditor who was the creditor prior to the dissolution of the firm was actually aware of the dissolution on the date the entry was made and therefore had actual notice of the dissolution. The contention of Mr. Oza for the appellant-plaintiff is that we must apply sec. 45 (i) to the facts of the present case and come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the dissolution of the firm and actual notice about dissolution which the plaintiff firm had the acknowle- dgment still binds defendant No. 4 for the simple reason that the proce- dure prescribed in sec. 45 (i) of the Partnership Act was not followed inasmuch as no public notice as contemplated by sec. 45 (i) read with sec. 72 (b) has been given. Sec. 72 (b) of the Indian Partnership Act contemplates publication of notice in the official Gazette and in at least one vernacular newspaper circulating in the district where the firm to which it relates has its place or principal place of business. Mr. Oza al