The mandatory nature of compliance with the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act and the inability to cure the defect in the institution of a suit by subsequent amendment.

This C. R. P. is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 373/1998 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur challenging the order in I. A. No. 3587/2000 dated 16-10-2000. The plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for realisation of Rs. 36, 379/- with interest being the value of the automobile spare parts purchased by him from the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm and the above plaint is verified, signed and filed by one A. C. Jose as the Manager of the plaintiff-firm claiming that he has been authorised to do so by one John K. Paul, who is one of the partners of the firm. The plaintiff filed the above petition to amend the plaint in order to incorporate that the plaint is verified and signed by one of its partners instead of the Manager of the firm. The lower Court found that the suit is filed in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act and therefore, the petition to amend the plaint is not sustainable and hence dismissed the petition.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner absolutely no prejudice is caused to the defendant and the nature and character of the suit claiming the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff is also not changed. According to him, only an inadvertant mistake committed in filing the suit is sought to be remedied by the amendment by incorporating that the plaint is verified and signed by one of the partners of the firm as provided under the Partnership Act in the place of the plaint verified and signed by its Manager.

4. It is seen that in the plaint it is stated that A. C. Jose who is stated to be the manager of the plaintiff-firm is authorised to verify and sign the plaint by Sri John K. Paul, one of its partners and an authorisation letter alleged to have been given to him by the partner is produced before the Court. It is thereafter the above petition to amend the plaint is filed by the plaintiff.

5. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act reads as follows :

"69. Effect of non-registration :- (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 suits 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."

6. Therefore, it is clear that under section 69(2) of the Partnership Act no suit can be filed by or on behalf of a firm unless the person suing is or has been shown in the register of firms as partner of the firm. In this case the person verified and signed the plaint is admittedly not a partner of the firm. But according to the plaintiff the plaint is signed by the Manager of the firm as authorised by one of its partners.

7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only committed a procedural error in not verifying and signing the plaint by one of its partners and such technicalities cannot stand in the way of advancing substantial justice. According to him, if the amendment of the plaint is refused on the technical ground that it is not verified and signed by one of the partners of the firm, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury since it will be prevented from recovering a large amount due from the respondent-defendant. He has also submitted that amendment of plaint should be liberally allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. In support of this argument the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Manohar Lal v. N.B.M. Supply, Gurgaon, wherein the Supreme Court has