MATHUR, J.

To question correctness of the judgment dated July 25, 2013, these appeals are preferred.

In brief, facts of the case are that M/s Balaji Marble Mines, Makrana came to be registered as a partnership firm as per provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1932') with M/s Mukesh Kumar Rinva, Bhanwarlal Aukna, Bhanwarlal Choudhary, Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal and Kanaram Burdak as its partners.

On 25.4.2009 out of five partners named above two partners viz. Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal and Kanaram Burdak said to have signed a dissolution deed to retire from the firm. All the partners, thus, said to have submitted to the Registrar of Firms an application in prescribed form 'E'. As a consequent to the same a change was made in the constitution of the firm and out of five only three persons viz. Shri Mukesh Kumar Rinva, Bhanwarlal Aukna and Bhanwarlal Choudhary were kept as partners of the firm.

Acting upon an application submitted by appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal, the Mining Engineer, Ajmer, supplied him certain information and on basis of that he submitted an application to the Registrar of Firms, Nagaur to restore him as a partner of the firm M/s Balaji Marble Mines being retired from it on basis of a forged partnership dissolution deed and also by submitting a forged form 'E'. The Registrar of Firms acting upon the application submitted by the appellant called upon the other partners of the firm to furnish their explanation. The Registrar of Firms, after making necessary inquiry including examination of the signatures said to be of the appellant by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, arrived at a conclusion that the retirement of the appellant from the firm w.e.f. 25.4.2009 was obtained on basis of a forged document, hence, a mistake occurred. Accordingly, the Registrar rectified the mistake and declared the appellant as well as Shri Kanaram Burdak as partners of the firm under an order dated 2.8.2011. On rectification of mistake by the Registrar of Firms the Mining Engineer, Ajmer by communication dated 4.8.2011 requested the firm to furnish partnership deed having all the five partners and to execute the agreement accordingly.

Being aggrieved by re-entry of the appellant as partner of the firm under orders of the Registrar of Firms, a petition for writ was filed by Shri Kanaram Burdak and then another writ petition was preferred by the firm M/s Balaji Marble Mines with assertion that under the Act of 1932 the Registrar of Firms is having limited powers for rectification of mistake and that could have been exercised only to remove manifest mistakes and not the disputed issues. The petitioners contended that in the case in hand the Registrar of Firms made a complete inquiry including verification of signatures on form 'E' through the State Forensic Science Laboratory though such detailed inquiry is not contemplated under the Act of 1932.

The writ petitions came to be accepted by learned Single Bench by arriving at a conclusion that the language employed in Section 64 of the Act of 1932 leaves no shadow of doubt that the powers of the Registrar are confined to rectification of mistakes and in the guise of rectification, the Registrar is not empowered to make roving enquiry and order reconstitution of the firm. While rectifying the mistake the Registrar is not empowered to adjudicate any dispute including inconsistencies in the entries. Learned Single Judge while arriving at the conclusion as above relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Sri Lakha Granites v. Eklavya Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 2011 Rajasthan 49, relevant portion of that reads as under :-

“20. A bare perusal of Section 64 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the Registrar can exercise the power only for rectification of the mistake so as to bring the entries made into conformity with the documents relating to the firm. In considered opinion of this court, while exercising the power of rec