Subsequent registration of a partnership firm does not validate an institution of the suit that was initiated without registration under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.

1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Division (Nowgong) decreeing the suit. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff respondent was a partnership firm and carries on business of textile goods at Haibargaon, Nowgong. Assam. The pro forma defendants were commission agents on behalf of the plaintiff and carry on business at Bombay. The Union of India was impleaded as a defendant and Western Railway, Bombay, Central Railway, Bombay and North - Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur were all impleaded as defendants. They were the carriers and they were managed by the Union of India. A consignment of nineteen bales of C. C. P. goods was booked from Ex Wadi Bundar to Nowgong, Assam under invoice No. B / 46 / R/R No. 4348/50 dated 2-8-1951 and at the time of the booking the condition of the goods was good.
The railway receipt was endorsed by the consignors and the plaintiff was authorised to take delivery of these goods. When the goods arrived at Nowgong it was found that they had been damaged in transit due to the negligence and misconduct of the Railway servants. The delivery was taken after a protest and the present suit was brought by the plaintiff for the price of the damaged goods on the ground that damage was caused to the goods on account of negligence and misconduct of the Railway employees. The suit was defended by the Union of India. A number of points were raised challenging the validity of the notices given under S. 77 of the Indian Railways Act and S. 80 of the C. P. C. It was also contended by the defendant that the amount of damages claimed was excessive.
The contention however raised by the defendant No. 4 was that the suit was barred by provisions of S. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act , inasmuch as the firm was not registered. It is not disputed now that during the pendency of the suit the firm was registered. The trial Court decreed the suit on the rinding that the subsequent registration validates the institution of the suit and there was no bar to proceed with the trial of the suit and pass a decree if before the decree was passed the firm had been registered. The trial Court accepted the defence contention as regards the amount of damages and reduced the amount to Rs. 4,800/-, the claim being for Rs. 5,200/1/-.

2. In the appeal the main contention raised by the appellant is that the subsequent registration cannot validate the institution of the suit. A ground has also been taken that the trial Court should have allowed the parties to lead evidence but as it appears from the judgment of the trial Court, the parties made a statement that they did not wish to adduce any evidence. The only question therefore argued before us is that the subsequent registration of the firm cannot validate the institution of the suit. Before we consider the authorities on this point it will be necessary to refer to the language of S.69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act which reads as follows :
"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 in the firm."
It is significant to note that the S.69(2) in terms prohibits the institution of the suit without registration. The words in S. 69(2) in our opinion are mandatory and the suit instituted without obtaining registration of the firm is void and cannot be proceeded with. It is necessary to refer to some of the authorities on this point. In the case of Dwijendra Nath Singh v. Govinda Chandra , AIR 1953 Cal 497 ,