JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By filing this appeal a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu [for short ‘the First Appellate Court’] in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 01/2013 by which the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khetri [for short ‘the learned trial Court’] in suit No. 26/2012, has been quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned court below to decide the suit in accordance with law.

2. Skeleton facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Karnel Singh filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-appellant and other defendants-respondents before the learned trial Court with the averments that a partnership deed was executed on 27.05.2005 between the plaintiff and the defendant for getting works from defendant-Hindustan Copper Limited in the name and style of M/s. Jagmal Singh, on certain terms and conditions. It was also stated in the plaint that some dispute occurred between the parties, hence, the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for permanent injunction for restraining them not to operate the bank accounts of the firm for personal use. The other reliefs were also sought.

3. The plaintiff-appellant submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the learned trial Court and took an objection about the maintainability of the suit in terms of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short ‘the Act of 1932’) by saying that the partnership deed executed between the parties, but the same was not registered. Hence, in terms of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932, the suit is not maintainable.

4. The defendants-respondents submitted reply to the said application and denied the averments made in the application and stated that registration of the partnership was not required and the suit is quite competent and the same is maintainable before the learned trial Court as per the terms and conditions of the partnership deed executed between the parties.

5. After hearing the arguments raised by both the sides, the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint in view of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 by saying that the partnership deed was unregistered, hence, the suit was not maintainable.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned trial Court below, the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court whereby the appeal was allowed on the basis of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haldiram Bhujiawala vs. Anand K. Deepak, 2000 (3) SCC 250, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “when the suit is filed for the enforcement of certain rights arising out of a contract entered into by the unregistered firm with the third parties in the course of business transaction, the same is not barred under Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932.” On the basis of the aforesaid judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the judgment dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned trial Court was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned court below to decide the suit in accordance with law.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court, the appellant-defendant has preferred the instant appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant submits that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is not a reasoned judgment and without considering the judgments cited by appellant-defendant, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court has been quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned court below for deciding the suit on its merits. Counsel further submits that the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala (