RABINDRA NATH Vs. P A PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant in O. S. No. 9722 of 1976 on the file of the 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,000 /-, which according to the plaint allegations represented the deposit which was given to the defendant and the interest thereon. The suit has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 41,700 / - and aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The suit was originally filed by Madras Steel Rolling Mills represented by its managing partner Sri P. A. Padmanabhan. But, apart, from other defences, the defendant also raised the contention in the written statement that the said Madras Steel Rolling Mills was not a registered firm and that hence, in view of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, the suit was not maintainable at all, However, subsequently, the said plaintiff filed I. A. No. 18755 of 1979 for amending the cause title and thereby substituting 14 individuals in the place of the above said " Madras Steel Rolling Mills", the first of whom no doubt was the above said P. A. Padmanabhan in support of the said I.A. stated inter alia as follows :--

(3.) In the above circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the said amendment itself was bad. One ground urged by him is that only some individuals have come on record pursuant to the amendment and even the affidavit in support of the I.A. did not say that they were partners of the alleged firm "Madras Steel Rolling Mills". That apart, he also urged that even the partners of an unregistered firm could not maintain a suit for recovery of the sum due to the said firm in view of the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. He also cited certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. But, I feel that there is no necessity to go into the said question. Even assuming that the amendment was in order, I feel that the suit cannot be maintained, because there was no amendment of the body of the plaint at all. The body of the plaint states that the above said amount claimed in the suit was due to the above said firm Madras Steel Rolling Mills. But, it is not stated anywhere how the present plaintiffs 14 in number are connected with the said firm or how the amount claimed is due to them. On that short, point, the suit has to necessarily fail.