A suit by an unregistered partnership firm or by a firm with partners not shown in the Register of Firms is not maintainable, and the defect cannot be rectified pendente lite.

Falshaw, J.

1. The circumstances giving rise to these two second appeals (Regular Second Appeals Nos. 275 and 276 of 1952) are as follows. Separate suits were instituted by a firm named Messrs. S.L. Kapur and Co., through Maharaj Narain managing partner against Bhagwan Das and Dr. V. S. Bahal appellants for Rs. 3,500/- and for Rs. 1,319/15/-respectively. In both the cases the sums were claimed as arrears due from the defendants as occupants over a long period of certain rooms in the Coronation Hotel at Delhi which is run by the plaintiff firm. The suits were contested by the defendants on all possible grounds but both the suits were decreed by the trial Court, and the appeals of both the defendants were dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge except to the extent that the decree against Dr. V. S. Bahal was reduced from Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 3,000/-. The defendants have filed these second appeals.

2. The only point now raised in the appeals is whether the suits could proceed in view of the provisions of Section 69(2), Indian Partnership Act, which reads:

"69(2) -- No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in Register of Firms as partners in the firm"

3. The facts relevant for the decision of this point are as follows: The firm S.L. Kapur and Co., was originally registered under the Act on 5-4-1940 when Maharaj Narain through whom the present suits have been instituted was shown as a partner along with Harjas Rai and Feroze Din. In 1942 Harjas Rai ceased to be a partner. The resolutions of the partners of the firm dated 6-9-1942 Ex. A and 24-10-1942 Ex. B show that in fact the partnership was dissolved and that Harjas Rai ceased to have anything to do with the business of the firm at Delhi including the Coronation Hotel, and accounts were settled between them, and it also appears that out of the liquor licences in the name of the partners the one at Delhi was henceforth taken in the name of Maharaj Narian and Feroze Din, while the licence at Kanpur was thereafter in the name of Harjas Rai alone, who was to carry on his own business there. Copies of these resolutions were sent to the Registrar of Partnerships in November 1942 under Section 63 with an intimation that Harjas Rai had ceased to be a partner. Thereafter in 1946 Maharaj Narian and Feroze Din joined one Sultan Ahmad with them as a partner. This change in the constitution of the firm, however, was only notified to the Registrar in July 1951, the present suits having been instituted about a year before that in July 1950.

4. Both the defendants raised the plea that the plaintiff firm was not a registered firm and that Maharaj Narian was not shown in the Register as a partner in the firm and, therefore, the suit could not proceed under Section 69 of the Act. The issue was framed in each case.

"Is the plaintiff firm a registered firm?

If not, to what effect?"

The trial Court found that the firm had been duly registered in the year 1940 and the only aspect of the matter which it considered was the effect of the withdrawal of Harjas Rai in 1942, regarding which it was held that this did not affect the plaintiffs right to bring the suits.

5 The matter was more exhaustively considered by the lower appellate Court, which agreed with the trial Court regarding the effect of the withdrawal of Harjas Rai, but also went into the question of the effect of the fact that in 1946 Maharaj Narian and Feroze Din had joined with them Sultan Ahmad as a partner and had not notified the Registrar of the change in the constitution of the firm under Section 63 of the Act until after the suit had been pending for a year or so. It seems that in fact the details regarding the joining of Sultan Ahmad as a partner and the notification of this fact to the Registrar in July 1951 were only brought out in certain evidence which wa