Compliance with Section 68(2) of the Indian Partnership Act and the necessity of producing a certified copy of the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms as conclusive proof of registration.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by which suit of respondent was decreed, has filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THIS appeal was admitted on 13-8-1991 on following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether filing of a photocopy of acknowledgment about registration of a firm issued by the Registrar of Firms and exhibited as P-1 was sufficient compliance of Section 68 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? 2. Whether in the absence of certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the Register of Firms, the suit of the respondents was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable?"

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent has filed the present suit on behalf of the Partnership firm. In this regard averment has been made in Para 1 of plaint but the appellant has denied this fact. In these circumstances, to prove the factum that the respondent is a registered firm certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the Register of Firms ought to have produced but the respondent has filed photocopy of acknowledgment about registration of firm issued by the Registrar of Firms which is not in compliance of Section 68 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'partnership Act' ). Learned counsel for the respondent submits that plaintiff firm was a registered firm on the date of filing of suit. Certified copy of acknowledgment about registration of firm has been filed which is according to law and the plaintiff is a partner of the firm. Respondent has duly complied with Section 68 (2) of the Partnership Act. In the circumstances, both the Courts below rightly decreed the suit.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent also submits that the present suit was filed for recovery of the amount for which defendant issued cheques but the same were dishonoured. In the circumstances, this suit is not a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract. In the circumstances, the suit was maintainable and it was not necessary to file a certified copy of the entry relating to firm in the Register of Firms. In this regard, she placed reliance to a Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Kerala Arecanut Stores v. Ramkishore and Sons, AIR 1975 Kerala 144 and single Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in M/s. Virendra Dresses v. M/s. Varinder Garments, AIR 1982 Delhi 481.

( 5 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to state the facts of the case. Plaintiff filed present suit for recovery of Rs. 16,450/- and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the ground that the plaintiff is a partnership firm dealing in paper trade in wholesale having its shop at Gulia Dai Marg, Bhopal. The name of partners has been shown in Para 1 of the plaint. The suit was filed through Sawal Prasad Goyanka whose name is appearing in Para 1 of the plaint. Defendant is a Proprietor of Rajeshwari Printers and for his paper printing work he was purchasing paper from plaintiff and used to purchase the goods on credit. There was a current account with the plaintiff and defendant has purchased paper of Rs. 75,395/- during 28-12-79 to 18-6-80. Against this defendant has paid rs. 58,990/- through cheques. But Rs. 16,405/- remained unpaid for which plaintiff requested the defendant but this payment was avoided on one or the other pretext. Ultimately, defendant issued two cheques of Punjab National Bank, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. Out of two cheques, some amount was paid by the defendant and another cheque was given and it was requested that these two cheques be presented after 3-9-80 and cheque was presented on 3-9-80 by the plaintiff to its Banker for collecting the amount but it was informed that the defendant has instructed to stop the payment of the cheque. As the defendant had stopped payment of the cheque hence the plaintiff issued a notice on 8-9-80 through his counsel and has called upon defendant to pay the amount for which the defendant has iss