Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the learned trial court, 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, dismissing the application filed before it in terms of O. VII, R. 11 CPC by defendants 1, 2 and 6 in a suit for partition by metes and bounds titled Farida Begun & Ors. v. Abdul Salam Bhat & Ors. The respondents herein filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds of the suit property comprising land measuring 5 Kanals, 3 Marlas and 206 sft and three residential houses standing thereon jointly owned and possessed by the parties, and the partnership business of timber sale depot and saw mill stated to be carried on between the parties on the ratio of 80:20% respectively between them.

2. The petitioners herein, namely, defendants 1, 2 and 6 in the suit, filed an application under O. VII, R. 11 CPC before the trial court stating therein that since the plaintiffs, besides seeking a decree for partition of alleged ancestral immoveable property, have prayed for a decree of partition of partnership business alleged to be carried on pursuant to partnership deed 12.09.2006, the suit was barred in terms of Section 69 of the Partnership Act since the partnership deed was not registered.

3. The learned trial court in the order impugned has held that since the suit is for partition of ancestral properties, including the business establishments, Section 69 of the Partnership Act is not applicable to the case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants invited the attention of this Court to Order VII, Rule 11 and submitted that in terms of Sub-Rule (d) of Rule 11, it is mandatory for a Court to reject a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Learned counsel submitted that it is the admitted case that the partnership deed dated 12.09.2006 on the basis of which the parties have been carrying on the business of timber sale depot and saw mill has not been registered. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 69 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Partnership Act, 1996 Svt. (1939 AD), the learned counsel submitted that the effect of non-registration is that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the Act can be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E. John, AIR 1977 SC 336, and submitted that the learned trial court has committed a grave error of law in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners-defendants.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to try a suit instituted on behalf of an unregistered firm. He submitted that Section 69 bars a party from filing a suit brought in the name of an unregistered firm. In this connection, the learned counsel cited and relied upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Kumar Kohli v. Karanvir, JKJ Soft JKJ/12370: SLJ 1994 368: KLJ 1992 700. The learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiff-respondent has filed the suit seeking partition of the ancestral properties, the bar contained in Section 69 of Partnership Act would not be attracted. In this connection, he also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, 2000 Legal Eagle (SC) 430 : 2000 (3) SCC 250.

7. The sole point that arises for consideration is whether the suit for partition is barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act?

8. With a view to finding an answer to the aforesaid question, one would need to go to the relevant statement made in the plaint. In this connection, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint are relevant which are quoted hereunder:

"6) That the su