The plaintiff must prove the registration of the firm and the validity of the power of attorney to maintain a suit as a registered partnership firm through the power of attorney.

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the lower Court for recovery of sum of Rs.3, 20,008.25, with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum with costs.

2. The brief facts mentioned in the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is represented by its Power of Attorney, Mr.Arvind H.Chhathar, S/o.Hardoss aged about 50 years and residing at No.1, Marnaby Road, Devdarshan Apartments, Madras-10. The defendant is a partnership firm and the constitution of the firm is not known to the plaintiff. The defendant is required to furnish for Jyoti Textile Dyeing & Printing Works names and address of all its partners. The plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant from time to time on the orders placed by the defendant. In the course of dealings with the defendant a sum of Rs.2, 376,924.25 as on 03.04.1996 became due and payable by the defendant. The plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant by the following Invoice Numbers:

a) Invoice No.204 dated 26. 1992 for Rs.1, 05,031.00 balance Rs.78825.

b) Invoice No.268 dated 38. 1992 for Rs.41,787.00

c) Invoice No.300 dated 19. 1992 for Rs.30,314.25

d) Invoice No.304 dated 19. 1992 for Rs.50,713.00

e) Invoice No.353 dated 110. 1992 for Rs.35,478.00

f) Invoice No.396 dated 310. 1992 for Rs.35,721.00

g) Invoice No.403 dated 310. 1992 for Rs.36,024.75

Total Rs.2,37,924.25

The plaintiff demanded the payment from defendant in person as well as through its representatives. The defendant neglected to pay the balance inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, issued Lawyers notices dated 24.05.1993, 29.06.1993, 03.08.1993 & 110. 1993 from Jetpur, Gujarat and finally on 010. 1996. The defendant has sent the following replies to the above Notices, claiming adjustment of Rs.51.001.00 in the credit of another concern M/s.B.N.D.Enterprises:-

a) Reply dated 28.05.1993

b) Reply dated 21.07.1993

c) Reply dated 14.06.1993

d) Reply dated 210. 1993

The defendant has written a letter dated 28.05.1993 to the plaintiff promising to settle the bills. The plaintiff sent a final lawyers notice dated 010. 1996 calling upon the defendant to pay the balance of Rs.2, 37,924.25 as on 03.04.1996 after adjustment of Rs.51, 001.00 in the credit of M/s.B.N.D.Enterprises, with interest at the rate of 24% per annum within one week from the date of receipt of the said notice. The defendant had sent a reply notice. But the defendant has not paid the balance amount till date. The plaintiff is entitled to the following amounts:-

Principal amount 2.37,924.25

Interest @ 10% pa

from 111. 1994 to 110. 1996

23/12 x 18/100 x 2,37,924.25 82,084.00

Total amount payable Rs. 3,20.008.25

Total amount payable is Rs.3, 20,0025. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 18.5% per annum till the date of payment. The amount due is in respect of commercial transactions and therefore, the minimum lending rate of interest at 18% per annum by Nationalised Banks is applicable. The cause of action for the suit arose at Madras on 29.06.1992; when the defendant purchased textiles from the Plaintiff and subsequently on various dates when the defendants purchased goods from the plaintiff and when the plaintiff issued a lawyers notice on various dates and finally on 010. 1996. The suit has been properly valued. Hence, the suit.

3.The plea raised in the written statement by the respondent would run as follows:-

The plaintiff firm is not a registered firm. The said Mr.Arvind.H.Chhatbar is not the duly authorized agent of the plaintiff. The power of attorney has not been validly executed. The amounts demanded by the plaintiff in their several legal notices has not been consistently made. The plaintiff itself is not clear about the amount allegedly due by the defendant. The defendant stated that it is true that the defendant had