SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(Mad) 177

STODART


ORDER

Stodart, J.

1. I do not think this is a case in which the High Court should interfere. Petitioners have been amply compensated in costs. The withdrawal of the suit by the partners who have not been registered as a firm could be no bar to a suit filed on the same cause of action by the same per-sons when and if they get themselves registered as a firm under the Partnership Act. For the latter suit would be technically by a different plaintiff. I do not see any reason why the unqualified dismissal of a suit filed by a number of persons be-cause they are a firm and are not registered under the Partnership Act, should be any bar to the institution of a suit on the [same cause of action by the same persons when they have got themselves registered. The defect which existed in the case, namely the non-registration of the firm, and which the learned District Munsif held to be a mere formal defect not preventing him from giving permission to file a fresh suit-a fresh suit I presume to be filed after the firm is registered under the Partnership Act-may not be a mere formal defect, but I do not think it matters, for the reasons stated. Even if the suit had been dismissed in limine a new s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top