The requirements of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act must be strictly complied with in order for a registered firm to institute a suit against a third party.

Deo—This is plaintiff's application for revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against dismissal of its suit on the ground that nothing is due to it.

2. The non-applicants support the dismissal of the suit on a fundamental issue. Plaintiff has alleged that it was a registered firm doing Sarafi business at Akola, and the managing partner was Umedmal. The defendants denied both these allegations and denied the right of Umedmal to institute the suit. The lower Court decided this contest in favour of the plaintiff on the oral evidence of Kapurchand (P.W. 1) that:

''Our partnership consists of Chandmal, Umedmal and myself. It is duly registered. I am the managing partner.''

3. Under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act 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 the Register of Firms as partners of the firm. Under Section 59 of the Act when the Registrar is satisfied that the provisions of Section 58 have been duly complied with, he shall record an entry of the statement in a register called the Register of Firms, and shall file the statement. Under Section 58 the statement to be filed has to state 'inter alia' (a) the firm name and (b) the names in full and permanent addresses of the partners and the statement has to be signed by all the partners or by their agents specially authorized in this behalf. Under Section 68(2) a certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the Register of Firms may be produced in proof of the fact of the registration of such firm, and of the contents of any statement, intimation or notice recorded or noted thereon. Under Section 67 the Registrar is empowered to grant certified copies.

4. There can be no doubt that the Register of Firms is a public document and the requirements of Section 69(2) are complied with by producing a certified copy of an entry from this register. The primary evidence of a document is the document produced for the inspection of the Court and secondary evidence means and includes certified copies given under Section 76 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 64 of that Act documents must be proved by primary evidence except in cases mentioned in Section 65. Under Section 65(e) a certified copy of a public document but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible, to prove the original.

5. It will thus be clear that the evidence of P.W. 1 is not admissible as secondary evidence to prove the fact of registration. It is not enough to prove that the firm was registered, but it must also proved that the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm. There is no evidence that the three partners have been shown in the Register of Firms. That fact could be proved only by producing a copy of the entry from the Register of Firms. The lower Court thus fell into error in relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 and holding that the requirements of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act were satisfied. The plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed on this ground.

6. At the close of the arguments on 28-3-51 the learned Counsel for the applicant prayed for a week's time to consider whether he should apply to withdraw the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit. The time was allowed and the case was adjourned to 10-4-1951. On this date he stated that he does not want to withdraw the suit. He made an application for leave to produce additional evidence, namely an acknowledgment of the registration of the firm. The reason given out for non-production of the document in the trial Court was that the applicant was not aware of the legal requirement that acknowledgment of the registration of the firm has got to be produced when the suit is instituted on behalf of a registered firm. Parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documen