The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered partnership firm cannot file a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract, as per Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

1. Heard Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, namely Shib Sankar Pal as well as Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, namely M/s. Chakraborty Auto Industries as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3, State Bank of India and its officer.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, questioning the legality of the judgment dated 21.05.2008, delivered in Money Appeal No. 1 of 2001 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 4 on decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. A money suit was instituted initially by one Deu Lal Sharma, being Money Suit No. 87 of 1998, as “the proprietor of M/s Chakraborty Auto Industries” pleading that he had agreed to construct the body on the chassis of the truck that the defendant No. 1, the appellant herein, on an estimated cost of Rs. 92,000, for which he raised the invoice. Against such invoice, the appellant herein applied for a loan to the extent of Rs. 92,000 from the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had earlier also accorded loan for purchasing chassis of the said truck vehicle. The said defendants permitted the appellant herein to have the loan to the extent of Rs. 68,202 i.e. 75% of the amount that was claimed as loan, on 20.10.1995.

3. There is no dispute that the defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 46,000, but according to the plaintiff (the respondent No. 1 herein), he was also entitled to get another sum of Rs. 46,000 in terms of the agreement for constructing the body on the chassis of the truck vehicle. Despite notice, neither the defendant No 1 (the appellant herein) nor the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit) paid the remainder of the same as stated. The respondent No. 1, the plaintiff in the suit, has stated that the defendant No. 1 gave due instruction to the respondents No. 2 and 3, the banker for giving the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein, a further sum of Rs. 30,000. Despite such specific instruction to the banker, the said sum was not credited in the account of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, had the said amount been credited in the account of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had been entitled to a further sum of Rs. 16,000. As the defendant No. 2 defied the instruction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 46,000 with interest for not making the payment in time. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 strangely have not filed the written statement, but from para 14 of the plaint, it appears that the defendant No. 2 sent a reply dated 14.09.1998 against the plaintiff’s notice dated 12.08.1998, refuting the untrue and false allegations'. The bank had asserted that they were ready to make payment provided the defendant No. 1 gave his consent. The defendant No. 1 had given his consent in writing to the defendant No. 2, yet the defendant No. 1 withheld the payment illegally. Therefore, even though the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 did not file the written statement, but by the reply dated 14.09.1998, they have categorically made their position clear that if the defendant No. 1 gave a categorical instruction to the bank, they would have no difficulty in making payment in the account of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant No. 1 by filing a written statement, has categorically denied that he ever instructed the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of Rs. 30,000. The defendant No. 1 has taken a stand specifically that he had asked the banker not to release the remaining amount as the bodywork was of inferior quality and unacceptable to him. He has denied all the allegations as levelled by the plaintiff in his plaint. What is to be noticed in the plaint is that the identity of the plaintiff, namely Deu Lal Sharma has been challenged by the defendant No. 1 by stating that the present plaintiff never entered with any agreement with the answering defendant as propriet