SHINGHAL, J.—This second appeal is by the plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below.

2. The two courts below have not gone into the merits of the controversy regarding the claim for the recovery of money, but have taken the view that the suit is barred under sec, 69(2) of the Partnership Act. As this is the only point for consideration in this second appeal, it is not necessary to state all the facts. It will be sufficient to say that the plaintiff averred in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm of which Suraj Bux, Jagdish Narain, Nathulal and Sita Ram were the owners. This was denied by both the defendants. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that the plaintiff was an unregistered partnership concern of which Murlidhar and Daluram were also partners. In paragraph 7 of the written statement it was stated that unless the plaintiff could establish that the firm was registered and the names of all its partners including Murlidhar and Daluram were shown as partners, the suit would be barred under sec. 69 of the Partnership Act. The first issue therefore related to the question whether the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm. It has been admitted in this connection by the plaintiff that the application for registration was made on April 29. 1957 and while the registration fee was fully paid up on May 15,1957 the actual registration was made by the Registrar of Firms on August 26, 1957. The suit was filed on July 15, 1957. On these admitted facts, both the courts below have taken the view that the suit is not maintainable on account of the bar of sub-section (2) of sec. 69 of the Partnership Act. The question is whether this view is incorrect ?

3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be desirable to make a reference to sec. 59, 59 and 69 of the Partnership Act for they are quite sufficient to show the scheme and the purpose of the provisions regarding the registration of firms and the effect of non-registration.

4. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 58 provides that the registration of a firm may be effected at a any time by sending by post or delivering to the Registrar a statement in the prescribed form, along with the prescribed fee, giving the particulars mentioned in the sub-section. It is not disputed that such a statement was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on April 20, 1957 and the prescribed fee was paid on May 15, 1957. Thus these requirements of sec. 58 were complied with before the institution of suit on July 15,1957. But sec. 59 of the Partnership Act is equally important for it provides as follows —

"59. When the Registrar is satisfied that the provisions of sec. 58 have been duly complied with, he shall record an entry of the statement in a register called the Register of Firms, and shall file the statement."

The section thus provides that the Registrar has to (i) satisfy himself that the provisions of S. 58 have been complied with, (ii) record an entry of the statement (sent or delivered to him under sec. 58 of the Act) in a register called the Register of Firms, and (iii) file the statement. It is therefore quite clear that the mere despatch or delivery of the statement referred to in sec. 58, or the mere filing of the statement by the Registrar of Firms, does not have the effect of registering the firm.

5. In the present case, as has been stated, it is admitted that the statement referred to in sec. 58 was filed on April 20, 1957, and the prescribed fee was paid on May 15, 1957, so that the completed statement, in the form prescribed by sec.58, was made available to the Registrar on May 15, 1957, two months before the filing of the suit. But it is also admitted that the Registrar, did not record an entry of the statement in the Register of Firms until August 26, 1957, that is, more than a month after the institution of the suit. It can not therefore be said that the plaintiff was a registered firm on the date of the suit or, in other words, it is quite clear that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document