The non-registration of a partnership firm as required under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 renders the suits filed by the unregistered firm non est in law, and subsequent registration of the firm does not cure the initial defect of non-registration at the time of filing the suits.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2007 passed in A.S.Nos.188, 181 & 186 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.04.2004 passed in O.S.No.4672, 4639 & 4673 of 1999 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai).

Common Judgment

1. S.A.Nos.1323, 1353 & 1354 of 2008 are directed against the common Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2007 passed in A.S.Nos.188, 181 & 186 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.04.2004 passed in O.S.No.4672, 4639 & 4673 of 1999 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. respectively.

2. The second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

" i). Whether an unregistered firm can maintain a suit for recovery of money lend by the firm, when such lending was not in the normal course of business of the firm and when the appellant firm is an engineering concern?

ii). Whether the suit filed by the appellant was hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, when the appellant was only seeking to work out its common law remedy for recovery of money lent by it to the respondent?

iii). Whether it was necessary for the firm and all its partners to sue as plaintiffs in the suit for recovery of money lent by the appellant to the respondent otherwise than the normal course of business?

iv). Assuming without admitting that the registration of the appellant firm is held to be necessary for maintaining a suit, whether the registration of the appellant firm subsequent to the filing of the suit would cure the initial defect of non registration at the time of presentation of the plaint?

v). Whether the learned trial Court and Appellate Court could have ignored the fact that the respondent had never disputed his signature in the promissory note executed by him in favour of the appellant and whether the same does not raise a presumption of due consideration in favour of the appellant and that the appellant is a holder in due course?

vi). Whether the learned trial Court and lower Appellate Court were right in ignoring the basic requirement of burden of proof which the respondent was duty bound to discharge when he never disputed his signature in the promissory note executed by him in favour of the appellant?

vii). Whether the application for filing of additional document under Order 41 Rule 27 can be rejected even without determine whether the said document would have a material baring on the crucial issue arising for decision or whether there is substantial cause for allowing the application?

3. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in all the three appeals. The suits have been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on the promissory notes.

4. Since the issues involved in the second appeals are lying in a narrow campus as regards the maintainability of the plaintiff's suits due to want of the registration of the plaintiff's firm, it is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case in detail put forth by the plaintiff as well as the defendant in the matter.

5. Suffice to state that the abovesaid three suits had been laid by the plaintiff against the defendant for the recovery of money based on the promissory notes. According to the plaintiff, they are carrying on the business of construction and in the course of business, the defendant approached the plaintiff to develop his property at Ambattur and entered into a memorandum of understanding with reference to the development of his property and the plaintiff paid advance to the defendant, subsequently, the plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over the original documents of the property for submitting the plans to the authorities and the defendant informed the plaintiff that the documents are mortgaged with the T.I.I.C as