( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 5-11-1999 recorded by the learned 3rd Civil Judge (S. D.) at Rajkot in special Civil Suit No. 61 of 1999, under which the learned Judge dismissed the said suit of the appellant on the ground that the appellant-original plaintiff was not a duly registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act, 1932.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. It has been mainly contended here that the judgment and decree of the trial Court are illegal, improper, unjust and without jurisdiction and against the provisions of law, against the legal settled position, circumstances, the evidence on record and against the authorities cited at bar and are unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. It has also been contended that the learned Judge, while passing the judgment and decree in question, has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him. It is also submitted that the question which had arisen before the trial Court for consideration was whether any unregistered partnership firm can file a suit and whether such suit is maintainable. That ultimately, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are illegal, erroneous and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) THE appellant, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court be quashed and set aside and the suit of the appellant be decreed in terms of the relief prayed. At the admission stage, Mr. M. C. Bhatt, learned Advocate appeared for the respondent. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. It is an admitted position that the suit was filed by the appellant-abovenamed for specific performance of an agreement dated 1-8-1977 executed in favour of the present appellant. It is also an admitted position that the appellant is shown to be a partnership firm, and the appellant was not a duly registered partnership firm till the suit was finally disposed of. It is further an admitted position that till today, i. e. at the stage when the appeal is being heard, the firm has not been registered under the provisions of Partnership Act, 1932, and therefore, it is not a duly registered partnership firm.

( 4 ) AT the same time, it has been contended that the appellant has subsequently made an application for its registration and the said matter is in process. A question has arisen as to whether a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm is maintainable? The trial Court has found that such a suit is not maintainable, and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant on the ground that it is not a duly registered partnership firm. Section 69 of the Partnership , act, 1932 (for short, the Act) clearly shows that a suit by an unregistered partnership firm is not maintainable. It would be relevant to refer the said provisions of the Act as under :"69 (1) 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. (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. 2043 (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 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. . . "on a bare reading of Sec. 69 of the Act makes it clear that no suit to enforce a right arisin