DWARKA PRASAD, J.—This appeal has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court for decision by a larger Bench, as according to him it involves an important question of law relating to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The only question argued before us in this appeal related to the Maintainability of the suit by a partnership firm and it was submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant that the suit was maintainable as the petitioner firm was a registered partnership firm within the meaning of Section 69(2) of the Act; while according to the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, the suit by the plaintiff firm was not maintainable. The facts which have a bearing on the aforesaid question raised in this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. Umraomal defendant is alleged to have taken a loan of Rs. 11,000/- from the plaintiff firm on June 27, 1968 with the stipulation to repay the same together with interest @Rs. 12% per annum and he executed a promissory note and a receipt for the said amount in favour of the plaintiff, firm, by way of collateral security for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document