IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2006. SECOND APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2006. SECOND APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2006. Premsukh Biharilal Mantri. ... Appellant. Versus. Sunil Kanakmal Gandhi. ... Respondent. Shri P.K.Hushing for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 31st MARCH, 2006. DATED : 31st MARCH, 2006. DATED : 31st MARCH, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Hushing for the Appellant/original Plaintiff. The suit filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that the bar of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 was attracted. 2. Shri Hushing appearing for the Appellant submitted that though in the suit there is a reference to partnership agreement between the parties, it is obvious that the partnership was not acted upon by the parties. He invited my attention to a copy of the partnership deed dated 24th August 1990 and submitted that the partnership deed itself indicates that the partnership business was only proposed to be started. He placed reliance on the admission of the Defendant recorded in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief and submitted that the as the partnership was not acted upon, bar of section 69 of the said Act of 1932 will not : 2 : : 2 : : 2 : be attracted. 3. I have considered the submissions. The averments made in the plaint by the Appellant show that according to him as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the document of partnership, a sum of Rs.1111.25 was paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. There is no specific averment in the plaint to the effect that the partnership was not to be acted upon. In fact there is an averment in the plaint that that the Defendant closed the business of the firm of M/s.Sunil Agencies and sold the moveable property which was allegedly acquired by the Appellant by spending a sum of Rs.92,528/-. 4. The statement made by the Defendant in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief will not help the Appellant as it is not the specific case of the Appellant as reflected from the plaint that partnership was not to be acted upon. If this is the clear position, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Courts below that the suit was hit by the provisions of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. Judge. Judge. Judge.