A suit filed by an unregistered firm is not maintainable and the objection regarding registration can be taken for the first time even in appeal.

A.S. 627/1983 is an appeal arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Cuddalore in O.S. No. 57/1974 granting a decree in favour ofthe plaintiff.

2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff Kumar Textiles by its partner P.M. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar against the defendant, among other grounds, the defendant has raised a plea in the written statement to the effect that he does not admit that the plaintiff is a registered Firm under the Indian Partnership Act or under the Indian Companies Act.

3. The learned Sub-Judge has framed an issue to whether the suit Firm is a registered one under the Indian Partnership Act and has given a finding on this issue as follows :-

Though in the written Statement the defendant denies the allegation that the plaintiff is a registered company, this plea has not been pursued further by the defendant. No questions were put to P. W. 1 disputing the statement made in the plaint on this aspect. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff-firm is a registered one. This issue is therefore answered accordingly".

On the merits of the case in which the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for Rs. 16,990/- and costs, the learned Sub-Judge has granted a decree with proportionable costs for Rs.323-42.

4. It is against this judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, the appeal has been filed.

5. In pursuance of the decree in their favour, the plaintiff has filed E.P. No. 142 of 1979. One Masilamani Mudaliar has filed a claim application in the sadi E.P., viz., in E.A. No. 643/1970 for raising the attachment effected by the decree-holder against the properties of the judgment-debtor. The claim application was ordered raising the attachment in some of the properties with an observation that the properties attached were joint family properties, against which the decree-holder cannot proceed on the ground that his share is also there.

6. Against the said order, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred to the District Court, Cuddalore in which, the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and attachment over 1/3rd share in the petition- mentioned properties has been confirmed.

7. Against this judgment in C.M.A. No. 66/1983, C.M.S.A. No. 54/1985 has been preferred to this Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act and it is not as if the defendant has given up his defence with regard to the maintainability of the suit under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act and the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside on the basis that it is in contravention of the statutory bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that in the written statement, the defendant has not taken a defence on the ground under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act the Suit is not maintainable and the defendant has submitted to a decree partially and prayed for a decree being passed for the admitted amount only and therefore there is nothing improper or illegal in the trial Court holding that the plaintiff firm is a registered one and granting a decree on the merits of the case.

9. Even at the outset, I wish to make it clear that both the appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals were not argued on merits except the ground regarding the maintainability of the suit under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. Both the learned Advocates have cited a number of decisions in support of their respective contentions. I also perused the evidence of P.W. 1 as well as D.W.1 and it is not stated by P.W. 1 that the plaintiff is a registered firm under the Partnership Act and that on the date of filing, the suit was filed by one of the partners of the firm. No question with regard to the constitution of the Firm has been put during cross examination of P.W. 1. Similarly, D.W.1 has also not stated that the plaintiff is not