1. This is a defendants' appeal directed against an order of remand passed by the first appellate Court which had set aside the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Registration of the plaintiff firm under Indian Partnership Act was invalid in law.

2. The ground on which the trial Court's view was based was that although the Indian Partnership Act had been extended to Part B States under the Part B States Extension of taws Act and had consequently been applied to the Madhya Bharat region yet no rules had been framed by the Government of Madhya Bharat under section 71 of the Act prescribing either the fees which ought to accompany documents to be sent to the Registrar of Firm for the firm's registration or the form of statement submitted under section 58 and of the form of its verification till 28-10-1955. The plaintiff firm however was registered on 19-6-1954 when the prescribed fees and form of statement under section 58 did not exist. Its registration consequently was invalid in law and the present suit filed on the strength of such registration on 8-8-1958 was incompetent since the plaintiff firm having been invalidly registered should be taken to be unregistered. The present suit was therefore bad by reason of section 69 of the Partnership Act. The suit was consequently dismissed.

3. The appellate Court on the other hand held that the registration of the plaintiffs firm was not invalid. Its reasoning is as follows ;-

"Section 58 is exhaustive itself to indicate the statement required to be submitted. The Register or Firms prescribed in the Rules of 1955 is exactly the same and contains the same details as are given in the section 58 itself. There is no substantial difference Similarly schedule I of the Act gives the maximum fees to be charged. The rules could not prescribe more fees than what Schedule I contain. And if maximum fees have been charged as in the present case in absence of any Rules, the provisions of the Act were deemed to be fully complied with."

4. Mr. Pande appearing for the defendants-appellants contended that the plaintiff firm ought to have been registered subsequent to the coming into force of the rules. Its prior registration, without a by registration fee and form to be submitted under section 58 having been prescribed, is a nullity.

5. The learned counsel merely relies upon the wording of the provisions contained in sections 58, 59, 69 and 71 of the Indian Partnership Act. According to him, since the statement for the registration of a firm is to be made in a prescribed form and is to be accompanied by a prescribed fee. Where no rules are made by the State Government for the purpose in pursuance of the power under section 71 laying down the form and mentioning the fees subject to the maximum amount laid down in the 1st schedule there could be no valid registration.

6. On the other hand Mr. Sanghi who appeared for the respondents contended that provisions as to Government's power of prescribing fees, when maximum limit of fees is laid down by the legislature itself, and the form of statement to be submitted under section 58 when that section has clearly laid down the essential requirements of that statement, are intended merely for convenient and orderly manner of working out the provision as to registration and as along as the authority empowered to effect registration is duly appointed and the necessary information which the law requires to be supplied to that authority to enable him to effect registration, had been supplied on the basis of which registration has been effected, it could not be said to be invalid marely because fees or form under section 58 have not been prescribed. The provisions as to fees or form can only be directory and not mandatory. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, if the provisions as to registration are substantially complied with and the person seeking registration is not at fault the registration effected by