// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil First Appeal No.135/1993 {M/s Mulchand Kumawat & Sons Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur through its Chairman and Another} Date of Order ::: 08.04.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri G.K. Garg with Shri Vijay Jangid, Counsel for appellant Shri Alok Garg with Shri Ansul Singh and Shri Kapil Choudhary, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Additional District & Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction vide impugned judgment dated 14th July, 1993, hence the appellant has preferred this appeal. The only submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the trial court committed an illegality in deciding Issue No.1 against the plaintiff-appellant and in holding that on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff Firm was not registered and, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed under sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the // 2 // Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short, 'the Act of 1932'). His contention is that the Firm was constituted way back on 16th November, 1982, whereas the suit was filed on 30th October, 1984, and the said Firm was registered during the pendency of the suit itself i.e. on 17th August, 1985, therefore, the suit should not have been dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and contended that mere constitution of a Firm is not sufficient but its registration is also necessary to initiate any legal action on behalf of the Firm. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment and the record of the trial court. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of district & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 30th October, 1984; the application for amendment of the suit was filed and, on its acceptance, the suit was converted into a suit for recovery of damages. Admittedly, the plaintiff Firm was not registered under the provisions of the Act of 1932 on the date of filing of the suit. The Firm applied for its registration on 8th July, 1985 and the // 3 // registration certificate (Exhibit-39) was issued on 17th August, 1985, therefore, the registration relates back to the date of application i.e. 8th July, 1985, and before this date the Firm cannot be treated as registered under the provisions of the Act of 1932. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 69 of the Act of 1932 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. The aforesaid dates i.e. filing of the suit, applying for registration and registration of the Firm, have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The trial court framed a specific issue i.e. Issue No.1 – as to whether the plaintiff Firm was a registered Partnership Firm and Mulchand Kumawat is its partner? The trial court, while deciding this Issue appreciated both - oral and documentary evidence, and thereafter recorded a finding on this Issue against the plaintiff. Section 69 (2) of the Act of 1932 is reproduced as under:- “69. Effect of non-registration.- (1) .... // 4 // (2) 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. (3).... As stated above, the relevant dates in the present matter are not in dispute and, as such, in view of sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Act of 1932 the present suit on behalf of unregistered Firm was not maintainable and, in my view, the trial court rightly decided the Issue No.1 against the plaintiff and consequently rightly dismissed the suit. In view of the above discussion and the finding, it is not necessary to discuss and decide other questions involved in the present case. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//