The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S.69(2) of the Partnership Act, emphasizing the need for the firm to be registered and the person suing to be shown in the Register of Firms as a partner.

1. Before a Court permits a technical plea to triumph every reasonable endeavour should be made to avoid such a consequence. Two suits were instituted by a firm on the strength of two promissory notes executed by the defendant; both were dismissed since a plea based on the bar of S.69 (2) of the Partnership Act found favour with the lower court.

2. I shall dispose of both the C. R. Ps. by a common judgment because the suits are between the same parties, and have both been dismissed on the same point viz., the bar of S.69 (2) of the Partnership Act. The plaintiff, in both the suits, is a firm registered under S.59 of the Indian Partnership Act. In fact the promissory-notes executed by the defendant show that the promisee is a registered firm. What is more, Exts. A4 and A5 also prove that the firm is registered. Therefore, the contention in the written statement that the firm is not registered has not found favour with the lower court. But, according to the learned Munsiff, there are two ingredients to be established under S.69 (2), the first being the registration of the firm and the second being the showing of the plaintiff-partner in the register of firms as a partner of the firm. He argues, after extracting S.69 (2):

"That means two conditions have to be satisfied viz. (1) the firm is registered (2) the person suing is shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. The best evidence to prove that the name of the plaintiff is shown in the Register of Firms as a partner of the Balakrishna Trading Corporation is the entry in the Register of Firms or a certified copy thereof which the plaintiff has failed to produce. In the absence of such evidence, the plaintiff can hardly claim to have successfully proved that his name is entered in the Register of Firms as a partner of the firm."

For failure to prove the second part of S.69 (2) of the Partnership Act, the two suits have been dismissed.

3. Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously argues that the learned Munsiff is wrong in upholding the objection of the defendant. In the plaint it has been alleged that Kelappan i e., the party suing, is a partner of the firm. It is further alleged in the plaint that the firm has been registered and its number is 103 of 1965. In the written statement the denial is only of the registration of the firm and not of the averment that the plaintiff is a partner. Therefore, an admission may be implied, in the light of 0.8 R.5 CPC., about Kelappan being a partner of the registered firm. On this conclusion the Court should have negatived the objection of the defendant. It is further contended that Ex. A4, an acknowledgment of the receipt of the statement under S.58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, itself shows that Shri Kelappan is a partner of the plaintiff firm. In fact, it is addressed to M/s. Balakrishna Trading Corporation, C/o. Shri T. M. Kelappan, Partner. Thus, it is clear that the partner suing is mentioned as a partner in the statement furnished under S.58 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act. S.59 of the Act requires the Registrar to be satisfied that the provisions of S.58 have been duly complied with. S.58 (1) (3) requires the name in full of the partners of the firm to be included in the statement. From Ext. A4 read in the background of S.58 and 59, it follows that the Registrar has been satisfied that Sri. T. M. Kelappan is a partner. It is not as if the mention of the name of Kelappan in the register can be proved only by producing a certified copy of the register. It may be inferred in other ways also.

4. I am therefore, inclined to hold that the dismissal of the suit on the ground that S.69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is a bar to the maintainability of the action is wrong.

5. It appears to me, although I am not called upon finally to pronounce upon it in the light of the finding already recorded by me, that S.69 (2) does not bear the construction put upon it by the learned Munsiff. Of course, the firm must be